W5- 


UC-NRLF 


B  2  aa?  5TS 


of 


k  II 


j  JUL  31   191' 


JURISDICTION   IN  AMERICAN 
BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 


BY 

NATHANIEL  RUGGLES  WHITNEY 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted   to  the   Board   of   University   Studies  of  The  Johns 

Hopkins  University  in  Conformity  with  the  Requirements 

for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

1913 


BALTIMORE 
IQ14 


JURISDICTION  IN  AMERICAN 
BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 


JURISDICTION  IN  AMERICAN 
BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 


BY 
NATHANIEL  RUGGLES  WHITNEY 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted   to  the   Board   of   University   Studies  of  The  Johns 

Hopkins  University  in  Conformity  with  the  Requirements 

for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

1913 


Baltimore 
1914 


A&2 


^^ 


^n^ 


Copyright  19 14  by 
THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 


i^p 


PRESS  OF 

The  new  era  printing  company 
Lancaster,  Pa. 


CONTENTS 

Page 

Preface   vii 

Introduction   ,. 9 

Chapter      I.  Territorial  Jurisdiction   13 

Chapter    II.  Trade  Jurisdiction 40 

Chapter  III.  Dual  Unionism  62 

Chapter  IV.  Demarcation  Disputes 95 

Chapter    V.  The  Cost  of  Jurisdictional  Disputes  ...  120 

Chapter  VI.  Remedies  for  Jurisdictional  Disputes  . .  147 


28874 


PREFACE 

This  monograph  had  its  origin  in  an  investigation  carried 
on  by  the  author  while  a  member  of  the  Economic  Seminary 
of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  The  chief  sources  of 
information  have  been  the  trade-union  publications  con- 
tained in  the  Johns  Hopkins  library.  Documentary  study, 
however,  has  been  supplemented  by  personal  interviews  with 
trade-union  officials  and  with  employers  of  labor  and  by 
immediate  study  of  labor  conditions. 

The  author  wishes  to  express  his  appreciation  of  the 
helpful  criticism  received  from  Professor  J.  H.  Hollander 
and  Professor  G.  E.  Barnett. 

N.  R.  W. 


vu 


JURISDICTION  IN  AMERICAN 
BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 


INTRODUCTION 

Just  as  one  cannot  imagine  the  existence  of  a  government 
without  an  area  over  which  it  exercises  control,  so  one 
cannot  think  of  a  trade  union  without  assuming  at  the  same 
time  that  there  is  a  territory  over  which  it  claims  jurisdic- 
tion. To  continue  this  political  analogy,  just  as  a  govern- 
ment presupposes  subjects  or  citizens  under  its  dominion, 
so  a  labor  organization  is  rendered  actual  and  existent  by 
members  subject  to  its  control.  This  membership  is  not 
made  up  from  persons  chosen  at  random,  nor  is  it  con- 
ferred upon  all  who  apply,  but  is  restricted  to  those  engaged 
in  a  specified  occupation.  In  the  formative  period  of  trade 
unions  this  idea  of  jurisdiction  over  persons  is  predominant. 
The  union  exercises  control  over  certain  men,  as  men ;  they 
are  usually,  of  course,  all  working  at  the  same  trade  or 
craft  because  a  community  of  interest  in  their  work  is 
likely  to  draw  them  together,  but  outside  of  the  union  are 
many  men  engaged  in  the  same  work  over  whom  the  organ- 
ization claims  no  authority.  At  such  a  stage,  jurisdiction  is 
purely  personal,  and  the  idea  of  trade  jurisdiction  has  not 
emerged. 

Gradually,  however,  as  the  association  becomes  more 
thoroughly  organized,  by  a  subtle  transition  this  claim  to 
control  over  certain  persons  working  at  a  particular  trade 
passes  over  into  a  claim  to  the  trade  itself,  in  which  stage 
the  union  asserts  jurisdiction  not  only  over  those  persons 
within  its  ranks,  but  over  all  those  who  work  at  its  trade.^ 

^  The  attempt  of  a  union  to  enforce  the  closed  shop,  for  instance, 
is  an  attempt  to  impose  its  jurisdiction  beyond  the  bounds  of  the 
union — to  take  control  over  other  than  its  actual  members.  The 
ground  for  this  is  found  in  the  claim  of  the  union  to  the  trade. 

9 


lO        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

Similarly,  in  the  early  days  of  trade  unionism  the  idea  of 
territorial  jurisdiction  was  entirely  undeveloped.  The 
jurisdiction  of  the  local  union  was  merely  over  certain 
persons.  In  describing  the  development  of  the  idea  of 
jurisdiction  among  the  Printers,  Professor  Barnett  says: 
"In  at  least  one  of  the  early  societies  it  was  for  a  time, 
indeed,  a  question  whether  the  jurisdiction  of  the  union  was 
personal  or  territorial.  On  April  21,  1810,  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  New  York  Society  declared,  in  a  series  of 
resolutions,  that  the  *  jurisdiction  of  the  society'  extended 
only  to  the  city  and  county  of  New  York.  Any  member 
of  the  society  employed  outside  this  territory  was  not  re- 
quired to  obey  the  '  regulations  of  work.'  The  considera- 
tions which  led  to  this  decision  have  been  controUing  with 
the  local  unions  organized  since  that  time.  No  useful 
purpose  could  be  subserved  by  requiring  a  member  to  obey 
in  every  place  rules  framed  with  reference  to  local  con- 
ditions."2 

Three  forms  of  trade-union  jurisdiction,  therefore,  may  be 
distinguished:  (i)  territorial  jurisdiction,  (2)  personal  juris- 
diction, and  (3)  trade  jurisdiction.  Since  the  second  type, 
personal  jurisdiction,  is  rudimentary  or  transitional,  atten- 
tion will  be  confined  in  the  present  study  to  territorial  juris- 
diction and  trade  jurisdiction.  Where  it  seems  necessary 
to  speak  of  what  appears  on  the  surface  to  be  personal  juris- 
diction, it  will  be  dealt  with  under  one  of  the  other  two 
types,  into  one  or  the  other  of  which  all  problems  of  control 
over  persons  must  ultimately  be  resolved.  Accordingly,  the 
first  and  second  chapters  will  be  devoted  to  determining  the 
territory  and  the  trades  over  which  the  unions  claim  con- 
trol, and  the  following  chapters  will  deal  with  the  disputes 
arising  from  these  claims.  It  will  appear  that  one  great 
class  of  disputes^dual  union  disputes — ^may  arise  from 
conflict  in  either  of  these  two  forms  of  jurisdiction  claims, 

2  G.  E.  Barnett,  "  The  Printers :  A  Study  in  American  Trade  Un- 
ionism/' in  American  Economic  Association  Quarterly,  third  series, 
vol.  X,  no.  3. 


INTRODUCTION  1 1 

while  demarcation  disputes  grow  only  out  of  conflict  in  the 
latter  form. 

In  general  the  term  "  jurisdiction  "  means  the  right  to  say,  l"^ 
to  dictate,  and  it  implies  the  possession  of  authority  or  con- 
trol. Specifically,  as  used  by  the  unions,  it  means  when  ap- 
plied to  territory  the  district  or  country  within  which  the 
union  claims  the  exclusive  right  to  organize  and  control.® 
When  applied  to  trade,  jurisdiction  means  the  right  to  con- 
trol the  conditions  of  employment  in  a  certain  class  of 
work.  These  ideas  are  obviously  complementary.  Trade 
jurisdiction  implies  that  the  authority  over  certain  work  ex- 
tends within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  union,  and  terri- 
torial jurisdiction  similarly  carries  the  implication  that  the 
authority  over  a  certain  territory  extends  only  so  far  as  a 
specified  class  of  work  is  concerned.  This  complementary 
relation  between  the  two  forms  of  jurisdiction  is  absolutely 
necessary  under  the  present  trade-union  form  of  organiza- 
tion in  which  autonomy  is  preserved  to  each  craft  and 
unions  are  limited  in  territory.  If  a  union  should  claim 
jurisdiction  over  the  United  States  and  Canada  without  any 
specification  as  to  trade,  all  other  unions  established  within 
that  territory  would  be  trespassing.  The  same  condition 
would  arise  if  only  trade  jurisdiction  were  claimed  without 
any  limitation  as  to  territory.  If  all  laboring  men  were  to 
join  a  national  industrial  union,  only  territorial  jurisdiction 
would  need  to  be  recorded.  But  since  there  are  probably 
one  hundred  and  fifty  or  more  national  unions  in  the  United 
States,  it  is  essential  that  each  union  shall  enumerate 
clearly  the  district  and  the  trades  over  which  it  claims 
authority.* 

3  A  full  definition  of  territorial  jurisdiction  will  be  found  on  p.  40. 

*The  term  "national  union"  has  been  used  in  the  present  study- 
as  a  convenient  designation  for  the  central  power,  or  what  might  be 
called  the  federal  authority  among  trade  unions.  To  make  use  in 
each  case  of  the  title  actually  adopted  by  the  union  would  necessi- 
tate varying  the  term  from  national  union  to  international  union, 
or  to  general  union,  according  to  the  title  of  the  association  under 
consideration.  To  avoid  indefiniteness  and  confusion,  the  single 
expression  "national  union"  has  been  used  throughout. 


12        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

From  what  has  thus  far  been  said  it  will  be  seen  that 
a  definite  jurisdiction  is  of  fundamental  importance  to  a 
labor  organization.  In  fact,  unionists  frequently  refer  to 
their  "property  right"  or  "vested  interest"  in  the  juris- 
diction claimed  by  their  union.  Just  as  the  extent  and  the 
boundaries  of  private  property  are  not  explicitly  stated  or 
carefully  described  in  an  unsettled  country,  where  each  can 
have  almost  as  much  land  as  he  may  desire,  so  in  the  early 
days  of  each  national  union  its  jurisdiction  is  not  well  de- 
fined; but  as  the  union  increases  its  membership  and  its 
branches,  and  as  the  field  is  more  thoroughly  covered,  it 
becomes  necessary  that  the  boundaries  of  each  be  defined 
and  stated. 

The  building-trades  unions  have  been  chosen  for  this 
study  in  jurisdiction  because,  in  the  first  place,  the  unions 
in  the  building  industry  form  a  group  more  or  less  distinct. 
"The  men  engaged  in  the  building  industry  are  a  family 
within  themselves."*'  In  the  second  place,  conflicts  over 
jurisdiction  are  much  more  numerous  among  the  unions  of 
building  workmen  than  among  other  organizations  of  labor. 
This  is  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  in  the  building  industry 
the  division  of  labor  is  very  minute  and  many  distinct  groups 
are  simultaneously  employed  on  the  same  product,  partly  to 
the  rapid  changes  in  materials  and  methods,  which  are  char- 
acteristic of  the  building  industry,  and  partly  because  the 
control  of  the  central  union  over  its  local  unions  is  as  a 
rule  weaker  than  in  organizations  outside  of  the  building 
trades.  Finally,  the  evil  effects  of  jurisdictional  disputes 
are  probably  greater  in  the  building  trades  than  among  any 
other  group,  for  the  sympathetic  strike  may  be  more  ad- 
vantageously employed  in  these  trades  than  elsewhere,  and 
it  is  because  of  the  use  of  sympathetic  strikes  that  the  evils 
involved  in  jurisdictional  conflicts  are  so  widespread  and 
costly. 

5  Pamphlet  of  Building  Trades  Council,  p.  12. 


CHAPTER   I 
Territorial  Jurisdiction 

From  an  a  priori  point  of  view  it  might  be  expected  that 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  central  union  would  be  the 
country  in  which  the  union  is  established,  just  as  we  should 
expect  the  territorial  unit  of  the  local  union  to  be  the  town 
in  which  the  local  union  is  situated.  This  expectation  is 
not  uniformly  fulfilled  in  either  case.  Obviously,  a  labor 
organization  cannot  extend  over  districts  or  countries  in 
which  living  conditions,  the  standard  of  life,  the  extent  of 
the  division  of  labor,  and  the  conditions  of  industry  are 
widely  different,  for  unless  all  these  factors  are,  in  general, 
similar  in  all  parts  of  a  union's  jurisdiction,  it  can  establish 
no  real  central  control,  certainly  no  uniformity  of  wages  and 
hours  of  work,  and  only  an  imperfect  system  of  collective 
bargaining,  for  all  of  which  purposes  the  association  exists. 
From  these  considerations  it  may  be  expected  that  the 
unit  of  jurisdiction  will  tend  to  be  all  that  territory  in 
which  the  conditions  enumerated  above  are  approximately 
the  same,  unless  such  districts  are  separated  by  physical 
barriers  which  make  intercommunication  a  matter  of  con- 
siderable expense  and  delay.  We  shall,  therefore,  not  be 
surprised  to  find  that  nearly  all  the  building-trades  unions 
are  international  in  jurisdiction,  claiming  control  over  their 
trades  in  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  many  of  them 
claiming  a  potential  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  continent  of 
North  America.  But  because  of  the  reasons  given  above 
which  tend  to  determine  jurisdiction,  nearly  all  these  unions 
have  local  branches  in  Canada,  where  industrial  conditions 
are  very  similar  to  our  own,  while  comparatively  few  have 
branches  in  Mexico  and  Central  America.  Some  account 
of  the  development  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the 
more  important  building-trades  unions  will  illustrate  the 
conditions  which  fix  the  extent  of  jurisdiction. 

13 


14        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

The  Granite  Cutters'  International  Association  of 
America,  as  its  name  indicates,  claims  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  the  United  States  and  Canada.  The  number  of  its 
branches,  districts,  and  members  is  limited  only  by  the  will 
of  the  association.^  Until  1880  it  was  known  as  the  Granite 
Cutters'  International  Union  of  the  United  States  and 
British  Provinces  of  America.  In  that  year  its  name  was 
changed  to  the  Granite  Cutters'  National  Union  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  From  then  until  1905  its  terri- 
torial jurisdiction  was  limited  to  the  United  States,  and  it 
was  actually,  as  well  as  in  name,  a  national  union.^  Even  in 
the  period  before  1880,  while  jurisdiction  was  claimed  over 
the  British  Provinces  as  well  as  over  the  United  States,  it 
was  felt  that  the  real  territory  of  the  union  was  the  United 
States,  while  the  territory  in  Canada  was  a  mere  appendage. 
Thus,  the  constitution  of  1877  provided  for  the  shifting  of 
the  central  office  or  seat  of  government  from  one  State  to 
another,  but  did  not  permit  it  to  be  moved  outside  of  the 
United  States.^ 

During  recent  years  the  continent  of  North  America  has 
come  to  be  considered  the  territory  over  which  the  associa- 
tion has  control.*  The  manner  in  which  this  extension  has 
come  about  was  suggested  by  Secretary  Duncan  when,  at 
the  thirtieth  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  the  association, 
in  commenting  on  its  growth,  he  said  that  the  original  plan 
was  that  the  organization  should  extend  only  over  New 
England;  when,  however,  granite  cutters  employed  in 
Granite,  Virginia,  and  in  New  York  asked  for  charters, 
their  requests  were  granted,  and  thus  began  the  extension 
of  jurisdiction.^  In  1882,  just  two  years  after  the  terri- 
tory of  the  national  union  had  been  limited  to  the  United 
States,  there  was  published  in  the  organ  of  the  union  a  letter 
from  the  granite  cutters  of  Toronto,  Canada,  in  which  they 

1  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  i. 

2  Constitution,  1880,  art.  i. 
s  Constitution,  1877,  art.  ii. 

*  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  March,  1907,  p,  2. 
5  Ibid. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  1 5 

said  that  they  had  seventy  men  at  work,  and  desired  the 
national  union  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  to  take  them  in,  so 
that  they  might  exchange  cards  and  pass  back  and  forth 
freely  without  being  compelled  to  pay  two  initiation  fees.* 
This  extension  of  jurisdiction  was  not  made,  however,  and 
in  1903  Secretary  Duncan  said:  "A  visit  to  Toronto  and 
correspondence  with  Hamilton,  Montreal,  St.  Johns,  Vic- 
toria and  Vancouver  indicate  that  the  time  is  ripe  for  our 
union  to  consider  again  the  propriety  of  changing  our  title 
from  national  to  international.  In  each  of  the  places 
named,  the  active  members  of  the  granite  cutters'  unions  are 
members  of  our  union  .  .  .  who  are  trying  to  make  conditions 
such  that  if  they  had  a  charter  from  our  union  they  would 
not  handicap  their  sister  branches  on  this  side  of  the  line."^ 
The  award  of  a  large  granite  contract  in  Vancouver  brought 
about  the  establishment  of  a  branch  there  in  1905,  which  the 
Granite  Cutters'  Journal  said  was  expected  to  be  perma- 
nent.® About  the  same  time  the  committee  on  the  revision 
of  the  constitution  suggested  that  the  title  be  again  changed 
to  "  international,"  in  order  to  take  the  whole  territory  of 
North  America  under  its  jurisdiction,  and  this  was  done.® 

A  similar  extension  of  its  territorial  jurisdiction  may  be 
traced  in  the  history  of  the  Bricklayers'  and  Masons'  Inter- 
national Union  of  America.  Organized  by  the  union  of  a 
few  independent  local  associations  in  1865,  it  was  known  at 
first  as  the  International  Union  of  Bricklayers  of  the  United 
States  of  North  America.  This  contradictory  title  was 
corrected  in  1868,  and  the  union  then  became  the  Brick- 
layers' National  Union  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
In  his  report  to  the  convention  of  1873  the  secretary  said 
that  when  the  bricklayers  of  Ottawa,  Canada,  applied  for  a 
charter  it  was  granted  by  the  president  and  himself  be- 
cause they  felt  that  national  boundaries  should  not  prevent 
the  affiliation  of  laboring  men  who  lived  so  near  each  other 

^  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  October,  1882,  p.  4. 

''  Ibid.,  May,  1903,  p.  4. 

8  Ibid.,  November,  1905,  p.  2. 

8  Ibid.,  February,  1905,  p.  2;  Constitution,  1905. 


1 6        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

and  worked  under  almost  the  same  conditions,  although 
there  was  no  power  given  them  by  the  constitution  to  do 
this  and  the  territory  of  the  union  was  limited  to  the  United 
States.  The  president  recommended  a  change  of  name  to 
"  international  union,"^"  but  this  suggestion  was  not  adopted 
until  1883.  Local  unions  were,  however,  chartered  only 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada  for  many  years.  In  1904 
the  secretary  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  advised 
the  Bricklayers  that  since  they  had  waived  jurisdiction 
over  the  bricklayers  of  Porto  Rico,  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  would  grant  charters  directly,  to  be  valid 
until  such  time  as  the  International  Union  might  wish  to 
assert  control.^^  The  following  year  this  control  was  as- 
serted by  the  Bricklayers  upon  Secretary  Dobson's  recom- 
mendation to  the  convention  that  these  local  unions  in 
Porto  Rico  be  chartered,  and  an  application  from  Honolulu 
for  a  charter  was  also  granted.^^ 

An  examination  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  In- 
ternational Association  of  Steam  Fitters  involves  also  a 
study  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  Association  of 
Plumbers,  for  jurisdiction  implies  the  exclusive  right  to 
organize  and  affiliate  local  unions  within  a  given  territory, 
and  each  of  these  organizations  disputes  the  claim  of  the 
other  in  this  fundamental  particular.  The  Plumbers  and 
the  Steam  Fitters  both  claim  jurisdiction  over  the  same 
territory  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  over  the  same  trade.  If 
each  controlled  the  same  territory  and  different  trades,  or 
the  same  trades  in  different  territories,  there  would  be  no 
dispute  between  them,  but  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  has  paradoxically  recognized  at  various  times  each 
of  these  associations  as  having  jurisdiction  in  the  same  line 
of  work  in  the  same  territory. 

When  in  1898  the  Steam  and  Hot  Water  Fitters  applied 
for  membership  in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the 

^^  Proceedings,  1873,  p.  9. 
1*  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  126. 
^2  Proceedings,  1905,  p.  26. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  1/ 

application  was  opposed  by  the  Plumbers,  who  were  already 
members  of  the  Federation,  on  the  ground  that  their  union 
had  been  given  jurisdiction  over  the  territory  and  the  trade 
claimed  by  the  Steam  Fitters  and  that  they  had  steam 
fitters  as  members  of  their  association.  A  committee  was 
appointed  to  consider  the  matter,  and  it  recommended  that 
the  charter  be  granted  to  the  Steam  Fitters  with  the  proviso 
that  the  Plumbers'  Association  be  allowed  to  keep  such 
steam-fitter  members  as  it  already  had  under  its  jurisdiction 
and  to  admit  others  to  its  local  unions  in  towns  where  they 
were  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  form  branches  under  the 
Steam  Fitters.^^  This  was,  in  effect,  limiting  the  territorial 
jurisdiction  of  each  union  by  that  of  the  other  so  far  as  the 
steam-fitting  trade  was  concerned,  and  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  difficulties  would  arise,  since  jurisdiction,  to  be  ef- 
fective, involves  exclusive  control. 

At  each  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
efforts  were  made,  on  the  one  hand  by  the  Plumbers  to  have 
the  provisional  charter  which  had  been  granted  to  the  Steam 
Fitters  revoked,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  the  latter  to  have 
their  provisional  charter  made  unconditional.  The  prob- 
lem was  referred  by  successive  conventions  to  special  com- 
mittees and  by  these  back  again  to  the  conventions.  In 
1905  the  provisional  charter,  which  had  been  suspended, 
was  restored  to  the  Steam  Fitters,  and  in  the  following 
year  an  attempt  to  revoke  this  charter  failed  in  the  conven- 
tion.^* In  19 ID  the  executive  board  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department  of  the  Federation  set  aside  the  decision  of  1905 
and  referred  the  whole  matter  to  the  Federation  convention. 
In  the  convention  of  191 1  the  charter  was  recalled,  and 
the  Steam  Fitters  were  refused  membership  in  the  Federa- 
tion and  were  ordered  to  amalgamate  with  the  Plumbers. 
This  they  have  refused  to  do,  and  they  now  maintain  an 
independent  existence,  claiming  international  jurisdiction 
with  local  unions  in  the  United  States  and  Canada.     The 

13  The  Steam  Fitter,  March,  1903,  p.  5. 

14  Ibid.,  December,  1906,  p.  i. 
2 


1 8        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

United  Association  of  Plumbers  also  claims  jurisdiction 
over  the  United  States  and  Canada." 

The  International  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers* 
Union  of  America  is,  as  its  title  indicates,  international  in 
jurisdiction.  In  its  early  years  it  claimed  jurisdiction  over 
all  unskilled  laborers  in  the  building  trades  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada,  regardless  of  sex,  color,  or  national- 
ity.^® This  territory  was  extended  by  the  constitution  of 
1907*,  which  declared  that  the  International  Union  grants 
charters  to  local  unions  throughout  America.^^ 

The  International  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers'  Union  of 
America,  according  to  its  title,  embraces  all  America  in  its 
territorial  jurisdiction.^®  The  requirement  that  "every 
member  of  the  International  shall  declare  his  intention  to 
become  an  American  citizen,"  as  found  in  the  constitution 
for  1906,^®  seems  to  limit  its  territory  to  the  United  States, 
though  in  fact  it  has  one  or  more  branches  in  Canada.  The 
Composition  Roofers'  Union  also  claims  international  terri- 
torial jurisdiction.^^  The  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers' 
International  Union  claims  control  of  the  territory  included 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  this  is  subdivided  for 
organization  purposes  into  five  districts — northern,  eastern, 
southern,  western,  and  Canadian.^^ 

The  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  International  Alliance  was 
organized  in  1888,  with  branches  in  Omaha,  Peoria,  Toledo, 

15  Constitutions,  1897-1906.  During  the  fall  of  1913,  after  the  above 
had  been  written,  the  Plumbers'  Union  announced  that,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  order  of  the  Federation,  the  Steam  Fitters'  Union 
had  amalgamated  with  the  Plumbers.  While  admitting  that  some 
of  their  local  unions  have  gone  over  to  the  Plumbers,  the  Steam 
Fitters  insist  that  their  association  is  still  maintaining  a  separate 
existence  with  about  twenty-five  local  branches  enrolled. 

1®  Constitution,  Laborers*  International  Protective  Union,  art.  ii, 
sec.  I. 

1^  Constitution,  1907,  art.  i,  sec.  49. 

18  Constitution,  Chicago  (n.  d.),  arts,  i,  ii. 

i»  Constitution,  1906,  By-laws,  art.  iii,  sec.  3. 

20  Constitution,  1906,  art.  ii. 

21  Constitution,  1902,  art.  viii,  sec.  i. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  1 9 

Memphis,  Kansas  City,  and  one  or  two  other  cities  ;^^  but 
the  territory  over  which  the  union  has  jurisdiction  has  ex- 
tended so  far  that  in  1903  President  Gompers  could  write^^ 
that  "the  American  Federation  of  Labor  declares  in  the 
strongest  terms  that  all  work  in  North  America  .  .  .  under 
the  heading  of  sheet  metal  work  .  .  .  comes  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers' 
International  Association." 

The  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  of  North 
America  illustrates  in  an  interesting  manner  the  extension 
of  territorial  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  national  trade 
unions.  Its  constitution  of  1854  provided  for  jurisdiction 
only  over  the  District  of  Columbia,  but  by  1859  we  find 
branches  in  Philadelphia,  Cleveland,  Hamilton  (Ontario), 
Cincinnati,  Baltimore,  Albany,  Detroit,  St.  Louis,  and 
Buflfalo.^*  These  branches  covered  a  wide  area,  and 
already  in  1858  jurisdiction  was  claimed  over  the  United 
States  and  Canada.^''  A  further  extension  was  indicated 
in  1 89 1.  At  this  time  some  members  of  the  San  Francisco 
branch  went  to  Guatemala  to  work;  when  they  tried  after- 
wards to  obtain  clear  cards  from  San  Francisco,  that  local 
union  attempted  to  charge  them  a  foreign  initiation  fee. 
The  executive  board  of  the  national  union  denied  their  right 
to  do  this,  saying  that  "  Guatemala  is  in  North  America,  and 
this  is  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Union."^* 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  preceding  description  of  the 
extent  of  territorial  jurisdiction  that  the  field  of  nearly  all 
so-called  national  unions  has  gradually  been  extended  be- 
yond the  national  boundaries.  That  is,  starting  as  organ- 
izations which  claim  jurisdiction  only  in  the  United  States, 
the  unions  have  very  early  established  local  branches  in 
Canada,  and  then  later  in  Central  America,  Porto  Rico,  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  and  other  adjacent  areas.     In  191 1  six- 

22  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers*  Journal,  July,  1905,  p.  241. 

23  Ibid.,  August,  1903,  p.  189. 

2*  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  April,  1896,  p.  2. 

25  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  June,  1858. 

26  Ibid.,  Supplement,  November,  1891,  p.  2. 


20        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

teen  of  the  national  building- trades  unions  out  of  a  total 
of  twenty-three  had  local  unions  in  Canada,  with  a  mem- 
bership of  thirty  thousand — about  one  twentieth  of  their 
total  membership.2^  The  foreign  membership  in  districts 
other  than  Canada  is  much  smaller  than  this. 

We  must  now  consider  more  carefully  what  is  implied 
^  when  it  is  said  that  a  national  or  central  union  has  juris- 
diction over  a  certain  territory.  There  are  two  implications 
here :  ( i )  that  the  union  has  the  exclusive  right  to  charter 
and  affiHate  local  unions  within  this  territory;  and  (2)  that, 
besides  having  indirect  control  over  its  members  through  its 
control  over  its  local  unions,  the  national  union  has  direct 
authority  over  them  when  they  are  outside  of  the  juris- 
diction of  any  of  the  branches  and  are  yet  within  the  terri- 
tory of  the  national  union. 

All  national  unions  have  been  created  by  the  amalgama- 
tion or  federation  of  independent  local  unions,  but  after  a 
central  organization  has  been  effected  the  process  is  re- 
versed, and  local  unions  are  then  organized  and  chartered 
by  the  national  union.  The  whole  matter  of  affiliating  local 
unions  is  in  the  hands  of  the  national  union,  and  it  may 
revoke  as  well  as  grant  charters. 

The  constitution  of  the  United  Association  of  Plumbers 
asserts  the  authority  of  the  organization  to  make,  amend, 
or  repeal  general  laws  and  regulations,  to  decide  finally  all 
controversies  arising  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  to  issue  all 
charters  to  local  unions.  The  rules  of  the  Stone  Cutters 
provide  that  seven  members  may  form  a  local  branch,  and 
where  seven  are  working  together  and  holding  cards  of  the 
national  union  they  must  organize  a  branch.  Where  there 
is  no  branch  in  existence,  the  first  member  who  goes  to 
work  on  the  job  must  notify  the  central  office,  giving  the 
names  of  all  stone  cutters  in  the  town.^^  When  trouble 
arose  in  1891  between  the  independent  stone  cutters*  union 

27  Report  on  Labor  Organization  in  Canada,  191 1,  published  in 
1912  by  the  Department  of  Labor,  Ottawa,  p.  10. 

28  Constitution,  1900,  art.  ix. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  21 

in  Pittsburgh  and  the  Uniontown  branch  of  the  national 
union  over  the  question  of  establishing  this  local  branch 
within  the  territory  claimed  by  the  Pittsburgh  union,  the 
national  union  asserted  its  right  to  organize  branches  any- 
where within  its  jurisdiction,  and  denied  the  right  of  the 
Pittsburgh  union  to  charter  other  local  unions.^^ 

The  claim  to  the  exclusive  right  to  organize  local  unions 
within  its  territorial  jurisdiction  is  illustrated  by  certain 
rules  of  the  Granite  Cutters.  When  members  of  that  union 
secure  work  from  an  employer  who  has  not  previously 
maintained  a  union  shop  or  in  a  locality  in  which  no  local 
union  exists,  they  apply  to  the  national  secretary  for  a  com- 
mission as  shop  steward  for  one  of  their  number.  The  dis- 
trict or  shop  is  then  under  his  supervision  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  national  union.  When  a  sufficient  number  of 
members  is  secured,  a  branch  is  formed  and  a  charter  is 
issued  by  the  national  union.^^  Sometimes  a  job  employ- 
ing a  number  of  union  granite  cutters  is  located  in  a  place 
where  there  is  no  union  and  where  there  will  not  be  work 
for  granite  cutters  except  for  a  short  time.  On  such  occa- 
sions a  shop  steward  is  appointed  for  the  job,  and  he  is  the 
direct  representative  of  the  national  union.^^  Besides  being 
the  sole  authority  in  granting  charters,  the  national  union 
has  power  to  revoke  them  if  the  local  union  is  delinquent 
in  paying  its  dues  or  violates  other  national  rules.^^  When 
a  forfeiture  of  charter  occurs,  all  the  books  and  property 
of  the  branch  revert  to  the  national  union.^^ 

29  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  January,  1891,  p.  i. 

80  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  September,  1902,  p.  4. 

31  Ibid.,  August,  1902,  p.  4.  The  progression  of  a  locality  or  of  a 
non-union  shop  from  an  unorganized  section  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  national  union  to  a  definite  and  permanent  part  of  the  national 
union  is  shown  in  the  following  comment  in  the  Journal  by  the 
secretary:  "The  Lebanon,  N.  H.,  job  bids  fair  to  be  a  permanent 
feature  of  that  town,  for  the  National  Union  Shop  Steward  District 
has  developed  into  a  branch,  and  a  charter  has  been  issued  accord- 
ingly" (ibid.,  November,  1902,  p.  4). 

32  Constitution,  1897,  sec.  201. 

38  Constitution,  1877,  art,  xxxiv. 


22        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

The  second  phase  of  national  territorial  jurisdiction,  that 
is  to  say,  direct  control  over  members  in  districts  where 
no  local  unions  exist,  is  developed  chiefly  through  the  recog- 
nition of  members-at-large  and  by  direct  initiation  into  the 
national  union.  Primarily,  national  unions  have  jurisdic- 
tion over  persons  only  indirectly;  they  have  control  over 
their  local  unions,  and  these  in  turn  have  direct  jurisdiction 
over  members.  The  national  unions  had  originally  no  mem- 
bers except  the  persons  who  had  been  elected  by  the  local 
unions  as  delegates  to  the  national  conventions.^*  The 
gradual  development  of  the  idea  that  the  individual  work- 
man is  a  member  of  the  national  union  has  profoundly  in- 
fluenced the  concept  of  national  territorial  jurisdiction. 
The  national  union  is  the  only  federated  form  of  labor  or- 
ganization in  the  United  States  in  which  the  members  are  the 
individual  workmen.  In  the  city  federations,  for  instance, 
the  members  are  only  those  persons  who  have  been  chosen 
as  delegates  by  their  respective  unions. 

In  the  convention  of  the  Bricklayers  in  1904  the  matter 
of  direct  control  over  members  in  unorganized  territory  was 
discussed,  and  it  was  said  that  very  often  a  local  union 
suffers  by  reason  of  the  competition  of  fellow-craftsmen  in 
adjacent  places  in  which  there  are  not  enough  workmen  to 
establish  a  subordinate  union.  The  executive  board  was 
therefore  authorized  to  initiate  such  men  directly  into  the 
national  union  and  to  enroll  them  as  members  of  the  nearest 
local  union.^°  The  Hod  Carriers  also  provide  for  member- 
ship-at-large  under  certain  conditions.  If  a  local  union  sur- 
renders its  charter,  such  of  its  members  as  wish  to  remain 
in  good  standing  may  get  cards  from  the  national  secretary 
and  may  pay  dues  directly  to  the  national  office;  if,  how- 
ever, they  are  working  within  ten  miles  of  another  local 

3*  The  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers,  even  as  late  as  1911, 
regarded  the  International  Union  as  composed  only  of  the  members 
of  the  branches  who  have  been  chosen  as  delegates  to  the  national 
convention  (Constitution,  1911,  sec.  9,  p.  9). 

85  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  March,  1904,  p.  2;  see  also  Proceed- 
ings, 1904,  p.  161. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  23 

union,  they  must  deposit  their  cards  and  work  under  its 
jurisdiction.^*  The  constitution  of  the  Slate  and  Tile 
Roofers  declares  that  "any  slate  and  tile  roofer  located  in 
any  locality  where  the  requisite  five  men  for  the  formation 
of  a  local  union  cannot  be  found,  shall  be  eligible  to  a 
direct  affiliation  with  this  association."^^  The  rules  of  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers  provide  for  membership-at-large  "  in 
localities  where  there  is  no  local  union,  or  where  the  juris- 
diction of  the  nearest  local  union  does  not  extend,  or  where 
there  is  one  and  not  more  than  six  sheet  metal  workers."^® 

Direct  national  jurisdiction  over  members  appears  in 
various  forms  in  the  Stone  Cutters'  Association.  All  mem- 
bers, even  those  at  work  outside  of  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
local  branch,  must  pay  dues  to  the  national  union.^**  It  has 
also  been  decided  that  in  an  election  for  officers  of  the 
national  union  a  member  who  has  a  clear  travelling  card  is 
entitled  to  a  vote,*"  whether  he  is  a  member  of  the  branch 
in  whose  jurisdiction  he  is  working  or  not.  Various 
methods  of  extension  of  direct  control  over  members  have 
been  agitated.  In  1897  a  member  of  the  executive  board 
submitted  to  referendum  a  proposition  to  make  a  national 
rule  covering  all  members  at  work  in  towns  not  in  the  juris- 
diction of  any  branch;*^  a  little  later  the  suggestion  was 
made  that  state  conventions  should  be  held  which  should 
make  a  scale  of  wages  and  hours  to  prevail  all  over  the 
State,  so  that  when  a  member  of  the  union  should  work 
at  any  place  in  the  State,  whether  in  a  branch  or  not,  he 
would  be  compelled  to  work  at  the  state  scale.*^ 

Another  aspect  of  the  problem  of  territorial  jurisdiction 
which  has  given  rise  to  innumerable  union  regulations  and 
many  controversies  is  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  local 

36  Interview,  General  Secretary  Persion,  August  21,  191 1. 

37  Constitution,  1906,  art.  v,  sees,  i,  2. 

38  Constitution,  1909,  art.  vii,  sec.  3. 

39  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  April,  1892,  p.  4. 
*o  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  April,  1894,  p.  12. 
*i  Ibid.,  June,  1897,  p.  13. 

*2  Ibid.,  March,  1899,  p.  12. 


X 


24        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

union.  In  any  labor  union  effective  organization  requires 
that  provision  be  made  to  facilitate  the  transfer  or  circula- 
tion of  its  members.  This  applies  with  special  force  to 
many  of  the  workmen  in  building  trades,  such  as  lathers, 
plasterers,  structural  iron  workers,  sheet  metal  workers, 
painters,  and  stone  workers,  who  either  move  about  from 
place  to  place  to  seek  work  or  are  employed  by  builders  who 
take  contracts  in  various  places  and  carry  their  workmen 
with  them.*^  Therefore,  since  members  of  different  local 
unions  are  continually  moving  in  and  out  of  other  branches, 
there  must  be  a  definite  understanding  as  to  how  far  the 
authority  of  each  local  union  extends  with  respect  to  its 
neighbors,  and  how  far  with  respect  to  the  national  union. 
We  shall  accordingly  examine  the  extent  of  local  jurisdic- 
tion in  various  unions,  and  then  inquire  as  to  the  relation- 
ship between  national  and  local  jurisdiction. 

What  has  been  said  with  regard  to  the  exclusive  character 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  a  national  union  applies  with  equal 
force,  in  a  more  limited  sphere,  to  local  union  jurisdiction. 
When  a  local  union  of  a  particular  trade  claims  control  over 
certain  territory,  it  is  implied  that  it  has  the  sole  right  to 
organize  and  to  affiliate  all  persons  practicing  that  trade 
within  the  special  district.**  Local  territorial  jurisdiction 
tends  to  expand,  just  as  national  jurisdiction  tends  to  ex- 
pand. This  results  from  two  causes:  First,  local  unions, 
like  all  other  organizations,  tend  to  enlarge  their  sphere 
of  influence;  secondly,  the  expansion  of  the  territory  of  a 
local  union  is  frequently  necessary  in  order  that  it  may 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  persons  and  work  which  by  reason 


*3  A  member  of  the  branch  of  the  Granite  Cutters'  Union  at 
Salem,  Massachusetts,  suggested  that  a  stone  cutter  ought  to  have 
his  home  on  wheels,  since  ordinarily  he  cannot  have  work  for  more 
than  three  months  at  any  one  place  (Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  Sep- 
tember, 1888,  p.  7). 

**When  more  than  one  branch  of  the  same  national  union  is 
established  in  the  same  territory,  either  a  division  is  made  as  to  the 
trades  or  crafts  controlled,  or  they  jointly  exercise  jurisdiction  over 
the  locality. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  2$ 

of  their  proximity  act  deterrently  upon  the  efforts  of  the 
local  union  to  improve  the  conditions  of  employment.*' 

The  extent  of  local  territorial  jurisdiction  may  be  con- 
veniently discussed  by  a  consideration  of  four  groups  of 
cases:  (i)  those  in  which  the  territory  is  definite  and 
fixed;  (2)  those  in  which  the  extent  is  determined  by  cir- 
cumstances; (3)  those  in  which  only  one  local  union  is  per- 
mitted in  a  town;  (4)  those  in  which  more  than  one  branch 
may  be  established  in  the  same  territory. 

(i)  The  attempt  to  fix  definite  limits  to  local  jurisdiction 
takes  in  some  unions  the  form  of  confining  jurisdiction  to 
theUiniits  of  the  town  or  city  in  which  the  local  union  is 
establishedT"firothers .  a xadius  of--a.X€Lrtain_  numj>.er  of  milegu 
is  assigned,  and  in  still  others  the  territory  of  each  branch 
extends  halfway  to  the  surrounding  branches.  As  will  be 
seen,  practice  is  by  no  means  uniform  even  in  the  same 
union,  for  a  national  union  may  fix  the  territorial  juris- 
diction of  certain  local  unions  definitely  by  any  one  of  these 
methods,  while  for  others  it  may  not  establish  definite 
limits,  leaving  the  extent  of  jurisdiction  to  be  determined 
merely  by  convenience  or  expediency. 

The  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  provide  as  follows :  "  Each 
local  branch  shall  have  territorial  jurisdiction  over  one- 
half  the  distance  between  itself  and  the  next  adjoining 
local  union."*^  The  constitution  of  the  Wood,  Wire  and 
Metal  Lathers  contains  a  similar  provision,*^  but  in  order 
to  bring  back  into  the  national  union  a  large  number  of 
seceding  local  unions  in  New  York  City,  the  convention 
decided  in  1907  to  give  to  one  local  union  exclusive  juris- 
diction over  metal  lathing  for  a  radius  of  twenty-five  miles 
about  New  York,  and  to  have  the  other  local  unions  amalga- 
mate   with    it.*^      A    third    method    of    establishing    local 

*5  The  local  branch  of  the  Bricklayers  at  Allentown  advised  the 
general  office  that  it  had  extended  its  jurisdiction  twenty  miles  to 
include  territory  in  which  bricklayers  frequently  worked  below  the 
Allentown  scale  (The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  September,  1900,  p.  8). 

*®  Constitution,  1906,  By-laws,  art.  ii,  sec.  11. 

*^  Constitution,  191 1,  art.  i,  sec.  4. 

*8  Proceedings,  1907,  p.  9. 


26        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

boundaries  was  tried  in  this  union  when  a  number  of  unions 
formed  the  Mississippi  Valley  District  Council.*^  This 
council  then  laid  down  the  jurisdiction  of  each  affiliated 
branch  in  the  hope  that  this  action  would  put  an  end  to 
the  frequent  territorial  disputes  between  the  branches. 

The  Stone  Cutters  seek  to  set  definite  limits  to  local 
jurisdiction  by  registering  the  number  of  miles  of  radius 
which  each  union  controls.  The  constitution  of  1892  requires 
that  "any  union,  on  becoming  a  part  of  this  association,  shall 
define  the  limits  of  its  jurisdiction,  but  in  no  case  shall  said 
jurisdiction  exceed  a  radius  of  twenty-five  miles."*^®  Dur- 
ing the  following  year  the  executive  board  agreed  to  grant 
charters  to  several  new  branches,  but  said  that  these  would 
not  be  issued  until  the  branches  had  announced  their  terri- 
torial jurisdiction.^^  Despite  the  constitutional  pronounce- 
ment, many  branches  have  been  granted  jurisdiction  over  a 
wider  range  than  twenty-five  miles.  Many,  of  course,  have 
been  granted  a  smaller  territory.  Rockland,  Ontario,  for 
example,  was  granted  a  charter  with  jurisdiction  over  a 
radius  of  ten  miles;"  Albany  asked  for  only  six  miles ;''^ 
Springfield,  Massachusetts,  was  given  ten  miles  ;^*  Seattle, 
Washington,  was  granted  an  extension  to  the  twenty-five- 
mile  radius;^''  Ottawa  asked  for  only  ten  miles  although 
the  nearest  local  union  was  three  hundred  miles  distant.''® 
On  the  other  hand,  Norman,  Ontario,  applied  for  a  charter 
giving  control  over  a  town  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
away;''''  Portland,  Oregon,  was  allowed  to  extend  its  juris- 
diction to   one  hundred  miles  ;'^^  and  the  San   Francisco 

*9The  Lather,  April,  1906,  p.  34. 

50  Constitution,  1892,  By-laws,  art.  xii. 

51  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  June,  1893,  p.  13. 
«2  Ibid.,  March,  1894,  P-  8. 

53  Ibid.,  August,  1893,  p.  14. 
"  Ibid.,  April,  1884,  p.  10. 

55  Ibid.,  June,  1893,  p.  13. 

56  Ibid.,  February,  1893,  p.  13. 

57  Ibid.,  May,  1894,  p.  13. 

58  Ibid.,  November,  1904,  p.  3. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  2^ 

branch  claimed  control  over  Sacramento,  one  hundred  and 
thirty-nine  miles  away.**^ 

(2)  Where  the  fixed  rule  for  determining  local  territory 
is  not  adhered  to,  we  have  in  effect  the  situation  which  we 
shall  illustrate  by  our  second  class  of  cases,  that  is,  those  in 
which  jurisdiction  is  not  determined  by  a  definite  rule,  but 
by  circumstances  and  expediency.  This  seems  to  be  the  ^ 
practice  of  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers,  for 
their  constitution  declares  that  the  territory  of  each  local 
union  shall  be  that  assigned  by  the  national  union.®^  Thus, 
during  1907  a  member  of  the  executive  board  was  ap- 
pointed to  divide  satisfactorily  the  territory  between  the 
Port  Chester  and  the  Mamaroneck  local  unions.®^ 

The  Bricklayers'  plan  of  dealing  with  local  jurisdiction  is 
essentially  of  this  nature.  Each  branch  has  the  right  to 
define  its  local  jurisdiction,  the  only  requirement  being  that 
a  description  of  such  territory  shall  be  filed  with  the  secre- 
tary of  the  national  union,  to  be  entered  on  his  records.^^ 
In  case  of  conflict  or  of  application  for  the  establishment 
of  a  new  union,  the  executive  board  can  alter  the  territorial 
jurisdiction  of  any  local  union.  Because  it  seemed  ex- 
pedient at  the  time,  the  executive  board  granted  permis- 
sion to  the  four  unions  located  in  the  Wyoming  Valley  to 
extend  their  jurisdiction,  reserving,  however,  the  right  to 
establish  other  local  unions  within  these  lines  at  any  time 
that  it  might  be  thought  desirable.^^  It  has  been  the  policy 
of  the  union  to  encourage  the  local  unions  to  assume  a 
wide  jurisdiction,  but  not  to  allow  this  to  interfere  with 
the  establishment  of  new  unions.  In  a  resolution  adopted 
at  the  convention  of  1884,  branches  were  instructed  to 
extend  their  jurisdiction  as  far  as  might  be  necessary  for 
their  proper  protection.^*    When  a  local  union  in  Wellsville, 

58  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  January,  1892,  p.  2. 
^0  Constitution  for  Local  Unions,  1903,  art.  i,  sec.  2. 
*i  Official  Journal   [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],   No- 
vember, 1907,  p.  32. 

^2  Constitution,  1897,  art.  xvi,  sec.  i. 

6*  Reports  of  Officers,  December,  1901,  p.  25  ff. 

«*  Proceedings,  1884,  p.  16. 


28        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 

New  York,  applied  for  a  charter,  the  application  was  op- 
posed by  the  Olean  branch,  forty  miles  distant,  which 
claimed  jurisdiction.  The  charter  was  granted  by  the  ex- 
ecutive board  because  they  regarded  the  distance  as  too 
great  to  permit  of  proper  control  by  the  local  union  at 
01ean.«« 

In  one  of  his  reports  for  1906  Secretary  Dobson  called 
attention  to  the  constitutional  requirement  that  each  branch 
must  specify  its  territorial  jurisdiction  in  writing  at  the 
office  of  the  national  secretary.  He  said  that  out  of  nine 
hundred  unions  only  about  two  hundred  had  complied  with 
this  law,  and  that  as  a  result  there  was  constant  friction. 
When  new  local  unions  sought  a  charter  in  the  vicinity  of 
existing  unions,  the  old  unions  claimed  that  the  town  was  in 
their  jurisdiction,  despite  the  fact  that  in  most  cases  where 
a  claim  was  filed  it  was  only  for  the  city  or  town  in  which 
the  branch  was  located.^^ 

As  the  following  examples  will  show,  there  is  no  uni- 
formity in  the  territorial  jurisdiction  claimed  by  local  brick- 
layers' unions.  In  1891  the  branch  at  Peoria,  Illinois,  said 
that  its  territory  extended  for  a  mile  outside  of  the  city 
limits  ;^^  the  stone  masons'  union  in  Washington,  Penn- 
sylvania, in  the  same  year  claimed  control  over  the  entire 
county  ;^^  the  local  union  at  Hancock,  Michigan,  announced 
in  1 90 1  that  its  jurisdiction  covered  an  area  six  miles 
square  ;^^  and  the  union  in  Peterboro,  Ontario,  described 
its  territory  in  1903  as  measured  by  a  twenty-mile  radius.*^® 
A  case  appealed  to  the  convention  of  1891  shows  the  strict- 
ness with  which  local  unions  seek  to  draw  their  lines  of 
jurisdiction  when  their  interests  appear  to  be  threatened. 
The  interests  involved  in  this  particular  case  were  the 
initiation  fees  and  the  branch  dues.     A  railroad  tunnel  was 

®5  Reports  of  Officers,  December,  1905,  p.  75. 

6^  Semi-Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  June,  1906,  p.  8. 

67  Proceedings,  1891,  p.  75. 

68  Proceedings,  1891,  p.  74. 

®»  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  December,  1901,  p.  9. 
70  Report  of  the  President,  1903,  p.  327. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  29 

being  built,  two  hundred  and  sixty-seven  feet  of  which  were 
in  the  jurisdiction  of  one  local  union  and  four  hundred 
and  twenty-three  feet  in  the  territory  of  another  union. 
The  secretary  of  one  local  union  claimed  that  the  boundary 
line  followed  the  same  course  under  the  earth  as  above  it, 
and  asked  payment  from  the  other  union  to  the  amount 
of  the  initiation  fees  and  dues  collected  from  those  members 
who  worked  in  the  tunnel  beyond  the  line  of  jurisdiction, 
besides  payment  for  the  cost  and  time  of  having  a  survey 
made  to  determine  the  line."^^ 

In  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Union,  branches  are  enabled 
to  extend  their  jurisdiction  wherever  it  seems  necessary  by 
installing  preceptories.  It  is  provided  in  the  constitution 
that  in  towns  where  no  local  union  exists  the  way  may  be 
paved  for  unionism  by  establishing  preceptories,  such  pre- 
ceptories being  under  the  control  of  the  nearest  local  union, 
and  being  usually  organized  by  the  nearest  one.*^^  Members 
of  these  preceptories  have  almost  the  same  status  as  mem- 
bers of  the  union,  and  a  local  union  may  have  a  number  of 
preceptories  attached  to  it. 

As  has  been  noted  above,  the  Stone  Cutters  do  not  ad- 
here closely  to  their  nominal  limit  of  twenty-five  miles  for 
local  jurisdiction.  A  member  of  the  Stone  Cutters,  who 
was  working  in  Texas,  suggested  in  1894  that  the  entire 
State  be  divided  among  the  three  branches  then  in  exist- 
ence— Dallas,  Fort  Worth,  and  San  Antonio — in  order  that 
all  the  small  towns  in  the  State  might  be  under  the  juris- 
diction of  one  of  these  local  associations.^^  Expediency, 
and  not  the  twenty-five-mile  limit,  determines  the  extent 
of  local  jurisdiction  of  stone  cutters'  local  unions  in  the 
Western  States,  where  the  distances  are  so  great  and  the 
local  unions  so  few  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  branches  to 
assume  jurisdiction  over  a  wide  territory  in  order  to  protect 
the  trade.'''*     With  this  idea  in  view,   a  member  of  the 

71  Proceedings,  1891,  p.  70. 

■^2  Constitution,  1896,  art.  vii,  sec.  i. 

73  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  May,  1894,  P-  6. 

7*  Interview,  Secretary  McHugh,  June  17,  191 1. 


30        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

executive  board  recommended  that  the  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion of  a  local  union  be  left  in  its  own  hands,  because  it  is 
the  best  judge  of  its  own  needs.'^'' 

(3)  Nearly  all  the  building-trades  unions  have  a  rule  that 
..  when  one  local  union  has  been  established  in  a  district  no 
P"  other  can  be  organized  there  without  the  consent  of  the 
first,  but,  consent  being  given,  most  of  them  allow  more 
than  one  branch  in  a  town.  There  are  certain  unions, 
however,  which  do  not  permit  the  establishment  of  more 
than  one  local  union  in  a  community.  In  the  earlier  history 
of  the  Lathers  the  executive  board  decided  against  issuing 
two  charters  for  local  branches  in  the  same  city,  since  they 
thought  it  might  lead  to  petty  quarrels  over  jurisdiction."'* 
In  their  more  recent  regulations,  while  still  retaining  the 
general  prohibition  of  the  organization  of  any  local  union 
within  the  territory  of  one  already  established,  the  proviso 
is  added  that  if  in  the  judgment  of  the  executive  board 
conditions  warrant  such  action,  a  new  local  union  may  be 
chartered.''^ 

The  Granite  Cutters  do  not  permit  more  than  one  local 
union  in  any  one  branch  of  the  trade  to  be  established  in  a 
city.  There  may  be  one  branch  composed  exclusively  of 
granite  cutters  and  one  branch  composed  of  blue-stone 
cutters,  or  there  may  be  a  single  branch  of  granite  cutters 
and  the  other  divisions  of  the  trade.''®  The  Kings  County 
branch,  which  was  formed  in  1891  by  the  consolidation  of 
the  Cypress  Hills  and  Brooklyn  local  unions,  was  a  result 
of  the  conviction  that  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  have 
only  one  local  union  in  a  city.''® 

^5  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  Supplement,  February,  1900,  p.  11.  The 
Granite  Cutters  do  not  fix  any  limit  to  the  territory  over  which  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  branch  may  extend.  The  New  York  local  union 
stated  that  its  jurisdiction  covered  an  area  greater  than  that  of  any 
two  other  branches  in  the  association  (Granite  Cutters'  Journal, 
March,  1906,  p.  7). 

^^  The  Lather,  May,  1902,  p.  4. 

■^^  Constitution,  1907,  art.  viii,  sec.  16. 

^8  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  44. 

7®  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  August,  1891,  p.  4. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  3 1 

(4)  As  has  been  said,  most  of  the  national  unions  allow 
more  than  one  local  union  in  a  locality.  The  United  ^ 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  permits  any  number  of  local  *; 
/unions  to  be  organized  as  long  as  no  reasonable  objections 
are  offered  by  the  local  unions  already  in  existence.  When 
there  are  more  than  two  local  unions  in  a  town  they  must 
form  a>district  council,®*^  through  which  unity  of  action  is 
effected.  The  Sheet  Metal  Workers  allow  a  local  union 
to  be  established  for  each  branch  of  the  trade  in  cities  of 
two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  or  more  inhabitants,  pro- 
vided no  objection  is  made  by  the  local  unions  already  in 
the  field.«^ 

The  Hod  Carriers  allow  more  than  one  local  union  in  the 
same  territory,  and  the  constitution  for  1905  declared  that 
"  whenever  two  or  more  local  unions  exist  in  one  city  or 
adjoining  cities  within  ten  miles  an  application  must  be 
made  to  the  General  Secretary-Treasurer  for  a  charter  for 
a  district  council,  which  shall  have  jurisdiction  as  to  all 
matters  of  common  interest  to  the  unions  in  the  council."®^ 
Sometimes,  when  more  than  one  branch  of  this  union  exists 
in  a  city,  they  are  distinguished  by  the  kind  of  work  done. 
Thus  Minneapolis  had  a  branch  of  plasterers'  laborers  and 
one  of  bricklayers'  laborers.®^  Again,  the  division  is  some- 
times made  on  the  basis  of  nationality,  though  the  president 
in  his  report  to  the  convention  in  1904  said  that  he  had 
refused  a  charter  to  a  laborers'  union  in  Omaha,  Nebraska, 
composed  exclusively  of  members  of  one  nationality,  be- 
cause he  thought  it  bad  policy  to  have  unions  of  this  char- 
acter.®* On  another  occasion,  however,  the  executive  board 
decided  that  in  Utica  all  Italian  members  of  the  union  must 
belong  to  Local  Union  No.  135,  while  other  members  must 

80  Constitution,  1907,  sec.  52  ff. 

81  Constitution,  1897,  art.  iii,  sec.  3. 

82  Constitution,  1905,  art.  ix,  sec.  i. 

83  Report  of  Executive  Board,  in  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers 
and  Building  Laborers],  February,  1906,  p.  81. 

8*  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  iS- 


32        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

enroll  in  Local  Union  No.  82,  no  Italians  being  permitted 
to  join  the  latter.^'' 

The  Bricklayers  have  uniformly  refused  to  allow  local 
unions  to  be  divided  on  the  basis  of  nationality.  At  one 
time  the  Italian  members  of  the  various  branches  in  New 
York  sought  a  separate  charter  for  an  Italian  local  union,*® 
and  at  another  time  the  German  bricklayers  in  New  York 
asked  for  a  charter  for  a  German  branch,*^  but  both  re- 
quests were  refused.  The  union,  however,  permits  more 
than  one  local  branch  to  exist  in  the  same  territory,  but 
these  must  form  a  local  executive  committee  which  has 
charge  of  working  conditions  in  the  locality.*®  If  the  unions 
cannot  agree,  the  national  union  reserves  the  right  to  con- 
solidate all  the  branches.*®  Thus,  some  years  ago,  because 
of  unsatisfactory  conditions  due  to  the  existence  of  a  num- 
ber of  subordinate  unions  in  the  same  territory,  the  execu- 
tive board  ordered  the  surrender  of  all  the  charters  in  New 
York,  and  then  apportioned  the  territory,  granting  charters 
to  one  union  in  Manhattan,  one  in  the  Bronx,  and  four  in 
Brooklyn  and  Long  Island.®^  That  there  is  a  strong  prob- 
ability of  friction  when  there  are  two  or  more  local  unions 
within  the  limits  of  the  same  city  has  been  shown  re- 
peatedly.®^ The  branches  may  not  agree  as  to  wages,  hours, 
and  working  rules ;  they  may  attempt  to  fine  or  otherwise  dis- 
cipline members  of  the  other  branches ;  they  may  have  trouble 
over  the  exchange  of  cards ;  the  district  committee  appointed 
by  all  the  unions  may  not  be  able  to  determine  matters  satis- 
factorily to  all  the  unions;  or,  finally,  the  two-thirds  vote 
ordinarily  required  in  cases  of  disputes  with  employers  may 
not  be  obtained.     The  result  may  be  a  constant  struggle  for 

85  Report  of  Executive  Board,  in  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers 
and  Building  Laborers],  November,  1907,  p.  98. 
®6  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  140. 

87  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  December,  1910,  p.  i. 

88  Constitution,  1887,  art.  xii,  sec.  8. 

89  Constitution,  1906,  art.  xix,  sec.  3. 

*<>  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  December,  1910,  p.  i. 
«i  Proceedings,  1885,  p.  53- 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  33 

supremacy  and  much  ill-feeling  between  the  large  and  the 
small  local  unions.  Some  of  the  branches  of  the  Brick- 
layers in  New  York  have  frequently  petitioned  the  conven- 
tion to  consolidate  all  the  branches  into  a  single  local 
union.®^ 

We  have  seen  that  a  national  union  regards  its  control 
over  territory  within  its  jurisdiction  as  exclusive.  In  the 
same  way  each  local  union  or,  where  there  is  more  than  one 
local  union  in  a  territory,  each  district  council  claims  ex- 
clusive authority  as  against  all  other  local  unions  over  the 
territory  within  its  jurisdiction.  The  Plumbers  declare  that 
any  local  branch  of  the  association  on  strike  is  empowered 
to  reject  all  travelling  cards  of  members  of  the  organization 
who  may  wish  to  work  in  its  jurisdiction.®^  All  the  unions 
provide,  like  the  Hod  Carriers,  that  "  any  member  locating 
in  the  jurisdiction  of  a  sister  branch  shall  be  governed  by 
the  rules  of  that  local  union."®*  That  a  local  branch  is 
regarded  as  having,  as  it  were,  a  vested  interest  in  its  terri- 
tory is  shown  by  a  provision  in  the  Bricklayers'  constitu- 
tion which  declares  that  if  a  member  of  one  branch  works 
in  the  jurisdiction  of  another  branch  when  the  latter  is  on 
strike,  he  shall  be  fined  by  his  own  branch  and  the  money 
thus  collected  shall  be  turned  over  to  the  injured  local 
union.®^ 

The  Composition  Roofers  prohibit  any  of  their  local 
unions  from  making  agreements  with  any  associations  or 
parties  to  cover  the  territory  of  another  branch  union.®® 
The  practice  of  the  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers  well 
illustrates  the  exclusive  character  of  local  territorial  juris- 
diction. If  a  member  joins  a  local  union  in  one  town  and, 
after  paying  only  a  part  of  his  initiation  fee,  goes  into  the 
jurisdiction  of  another  local  union,  he  must  pay  the  balance 

»2  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  124. 

83  Constitution,  1910,  sec.  177. 

84  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  89. 

8°  Constitution,  1882,  art.  xiv,  sec.  7. 
86  Constitution,  1906,  art.  xviii,  sec.  7. 


34        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

of  his  initiation  fee  to  the  latter  union,  which  retains  it. 
The  union  which  he  joined  originally  is  no  longer  regarded 
as  having  any  authority  over  him.*^ 

A  branch  of  the  Stone  Cutters  is  held  responsible  within 
its  territory  for  any  violations  of  the  rules  of  the  national 
union.  Thus  a  charge  was  brought  against  the  Nashville 
branch  because  some  of  its  members  violated  the  national 
rule  in  regard  to  piece  work.^^  In  one  of  their  earliest  con- 
stitutions the  Granite  Cutters  provided  against  any  inter- 
ference with  the  authority  of  local  unions  over  their  mem- 
bers in  the  following  rule:  "When  any  branch  imposes  a 
fine  or  penalty  on  one  of  its  members  for  violation  of  local 
or  general  laws,  no  other  branch  shall  have  a  right  to  alter 
or  mitigate  such  decision."®^  In  Newark  a  member  of  the 
union  was  fined  twenty-five  dollars  for  introducing  a 
Quincy  bill  of  prices  into  a  yard,  for  this  bill  was  lower 
than  the  local  one,  and  the  Newark  local  union  had  exclusive 
jurisdiction  over  work  and  wages  in  that  territory. ^^^ 

Some  of  the  national  unions  have  hundreds  of  local 
unions  scattered  throughout  the  United  States  and  Canada. 
In  some  cases,  as  has  been  noted,  their  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion is  fixed  by  definite  rule,  in  others  by  expediency.  In 
some  cases  a  number  of  branches  are  located  within  a  fixed 
territory,  in  others  only  one.  Under  these  circumstances 
many  perplexing  problems  arise  in  the  relationship  between 
local  unions.  The  formation  of  district  councils  or  central 
committees  in  cities  or  closely  adjoining  districts  having 
more  than  two  local  unions  has  in  a  great  measure  reduced 

»^  Constitution,  1903,  art.  ix,  sec.  4. 

^8  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  January,  1895,  p.  11. 

»» Constitution,  1877,  art.  xxxv.  The  secretary  of  the  Kings 
County  branch  of  the  Granite  Cutters  said :  "  Our  policy  in  the  fu- 
ture, as  in  the  past,  will  be  non-intervention  in  the  local  affairs  of 
other  branches;  what  we  concede  to  others  we  demand  for  our- 
selves. Any  member  coming  here  to  work  will  have  to  deposit  his 
card  with  this  branch,  not  as  it  has  been  in  the  past  with  some, 
leave  it  with  a  neighboring  branch"  (Granite  Cutters'  Journal, 
August,  1891,  p.  4). 

io<>  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  December,  1882,  p.  5. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  35 

friction  in  such  cases.     In  order  to  get  the  local  unions  into 
the  district  councils,  the  convention  of  1904  of  the  United  / 
Brotherhood    of    Carpenters    authorized    its    president    to  ! 
compel  the  affiliation  of  local  unions  with  the  district  council  i 
under  which  he  thinks  they  ought  to  be.^*^^     The  Plumbers 
provide  for  the  creation  of  state  and  interstate  associations 
when  desired  by  the  local  branches  concerned,  and  these 
associations  try  to  settle  controversies  arising  between  their 
affiliated  local  unions.^^^ 

The  Bricklayers  have  had  a  number  of  conflicts  between  v 
their  local  unions,  since  they  frequently  have  in  the  same 
community  branches  whose  members  do  either  bricklaying, 
stonemasonry,  or  plastering  exclusively.  It  has  been  the 
practice  to  let  each  branch  regulate  conditions  in  its  own 
line  of  work.  Frequently  the  masons  have  complained  that 
the  bricklayers  of  their  own  national  union  not  only  do  not 
help  them  to  enforce  their  rules,  but  even  work  on  jobs 
on  which  the  stone  work  is  being  done  by  non-union  stone- 
masons.^**^ Such  a  charge,  for  instance,  was  made  by  Local 
Union  No.  30  of  the  stonemasons  in  New  York.  The 
executive  board  of  the  national  union  in  conference  with  the 
subcontractors  on  the  New  York  Rapid  Transit  Tunnel 
drew  up  a  working  agreement  which  settled  disputes  that 
had  existed  for  almost  a  year  between  the  bricklaying  and 
stonemasonry  branches.^^* 

Another  form  of  dispute  arises  from  controversy  over 
the  right  to  collect  dues  from  members  of  local  unions  who 
are  temporarily  working  in  another  jurisdiction.  In  the  con- 
vention of  1889  the  Cohoes  branch  of  the  Bricklayers  filed 
a  protest  against  the  Troy  local  union  because  members  of 
the  latter  continually  trespassed  upon  the  territory  of  the 
former  and  refused  to  deposit  working  cards  or  pay  dues 
to  the  Cohoes  union.^^''    An  unusual  arrangement  was  made 

i<>i  The  Carpenter,  March,  1905,  p.  10. 

102  Constitution,  1897,  art.  ix. 

^^^  Proceedings,  1902,  p.  79. 

10*  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  February,  1902,  p.  3. 

105  Proceedings,  1889,  p.  38. 


36        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

by  the  Baltimore  and  Washington  local  unions  of  the  Slate 
and  Tile  Roofers.  The  employers  in  these  two  cities  often 
take  their  men  from  the  one  city  to  the  other  when  they 
have  a  contract,  and  the  men  did  not  wish  to  be  continually 
transferring  their  membership  from  one  local  union  to  the 
other.  Hence  it  was  agreed  that  the  territory  of  the  two 
local  unions  should  be  common  to  both/^®  but  this  arrange- 
ment did  not  work  satisfactorily  and  was  discontinued.  As 
a  result  of  frequent  disputes  caused  by  members  of  the 
New  York  local  unions  of  the  Composition  Roofers  working 
in  the  territory  of  the  Newark  local  union  without  transfer 
cards,  it  was  decided  at  a  recent  convention^^^  that  any 
member  working  in  the  jurisdiction  of  another  union  with- 
out a  transfer  card  should  be  fined,  and  such  fine  be  given 
to  the  injured  local  branch. 

Like  all  the  other  building-trades  unions,  the  Sheet  Metal 
Workers  require  that  when  a  member  of  one  local  union 
wishes  to  go  to  work  in  the  territory  of  another  he  must  get 
a  travelling  card  from  his  local  branch  and  deposit  it  with 
the  branch  in  whose  jurisdiction  he  is  to  work.^^^  Recently 
the  general  organizer  said  in  his  report  that  he  found  a  good 
deal  of  dissatisfaction  among  the  sheet  metal  workers  in 
Jersey  City  because  the  New  York  branch  was  overrunning 
their  territory.^^^  The  same  organizer  was  also  called  upon 
to  adjust  a  conflict  between  the  local  unions  in  Norfolk  and 
Newport  News  over  the  question  as  to  which  should  have 
jurisdiction  over  the  work  on  the  Jamestown  Exposition 
grounds,  midway  between  the  two  towns.^^^ 

The  Stone  Cutters  have  had  many  controversies  between 
the  branches  because  contractors  made  a  practice  of  having 
the  stone  cut  by  the  local  unions  which  had  the  lower  wage 

106  Proceedings,  1904,  pp.  10,  11. 

107  MS.  Proceedings  of  Fifth  Annual  Convention  of  International 
Brotherhood  of  Composition  Roofers,  191 1. 

108  Constitution,  1901,  art.  xi,  sec.  i. 

109  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  October,  1909, 
p.  410. 

110  Ibid.,  April,  1907,  p.  126. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  3/ 

scale  and  then  shipping  the  finished  product  wherever  they 
wished  to  use  it.  A  general  rule  was  enacted  by  the  union 
forbidding  the  transportation  of  cut  stone  from  one  place 
to  another,  unless  wages  and  hours  in  the  two  places  were 
equal.^^^  Where  two  local  unions  are  close  together  and 
their  wage  scales  are  very  different,  conflict  often  arises 
between  them  because  the  branch  with  the  higher  wage  has 
difficulty  in  maintaining  its  scale.  Thus,  the  executive 
board  of  the  Stone  Cutters  threatened  to  revoke  the  charter 
of  the  local  union  at  Nelson,  Georgia,  unless  it  should  adopt 
the  same  scale  and  working  rules  as  were  in  force  at  Tate, 
Georgia.^^^ 

As  has  been  said  before,  the  national  unions  grew  out  of 
a  combination  of  a  few  local  unions.  Once  formed,  the 
national  union  rapidly  gains  supremacy,  and  with  this  tend- 
ency toward  centralization  of  power  the  problem  of  branch 
jurisdiction  becomes  less  important,  for  matters  of  general 
interest  are  taken  more  and  more  under  the  supervision  of 
the  national  body.  It  will  therefore  be  interesting  at  this 
point  to  describe  briefly  the  division  of  powers  between  the 
national  union  and  the  local  union,  although  strictly  speal<- 
ing  such  a  discussion  falls  under  the  head  of  government. 

As  a  general  proposition  it  is  safe  to  say  with  respect  to 
all  the  building  trades,  as  the  Hod  Carriers  do  in  their  con- 
stitution of  1907,^^^  that  "  the  International  Union  has  su- 
preme ruling  power  over  all  local  unions,"  and  in  matters 
which  concern  the  general  interests  of  the  union  the  local 
unions  are  subordinate  to  the  national  bodies.  The  Brick- 
layers, in  outlining  the  jurisdiction  of  state  associations  or 
provincial  conferences,   say:^^*  "All  differences  with  em- 

m  Constitution,  1900,  art.  xii.  The  secretary  of  one  of  the  local 
branches  of  the  Granite  Cutters  wrote  in  1891  that  the  jurisdiction 
relations  between  the  local  unions  were  not  satisfactory,  inasmuch 
as  employers  were  able  to  send  their  granite  out  of  their  own  town 
and  have  it  cut  in  the  jurisdiction  of  a  local  union  whose  wage 
scale  was  lower  (Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  September,  1891,  p.  5). 

^^2  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  December,  1892,  p.  10. 

113  Constitution,  1907,  art.  i,  sec.  9. 

11*  Constitution,  1908,  art.  xvii,  sec.  10. 


38        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

ployers,  '  unfairs/  appointment  of  deputies,  grievances  relat- 
ing to  strikes  and  lockouts,  judicial  appeals  and  grievances 
between  members  of  unions  in  different  states,  working  codes, 
agreements  with  employers  and  constitutions  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  International  Union."  In  December,  1905,  the 
Bricklayers  suspended  thirteen  of  their  most  powerful  local 
branches  in  New  York  City  for  refusing  to  obey  the 
national  union  rule  in  regard  to  fireproofing.  A  few  of  the 
branches  obeyed  the  orders,  and  their  charters  were  re- 
tained. The  issue  as  to  the  supremacy  of  the  national  or 
the  local  unions  was  clearly  marked,  the  New  York  unions 
claiming  that  the  fireproofing  matter  was  one  of  purely  local 
concern,  and  that  the  national  union  had  no  right  to  dictate 
in  the  drawing  up  of  their  agreements  or  contracts.^^* 

The  Granite  Cutters'  constitution  declares  that  "all 
branches  shall  have  the  power  to  make  their  local  laws, 
providing  they  do  not  conflict  with  the  constitution  and  by- 
laws of  the  national  union."^^^  Within  a  minimum  and 
maximum  limit,  local  unions  of  granite  cutters  have  power 
to  fix  their  initiation  fees.^^^  In  their  apprenticeship  regu- 
lations the  successive  constitutions  of  the  Granite  Cutters 
show  the  widening  of  national  jurisdiction  at  the  expense  of 
that  of  the  local  unions.  The  constitution  of  1897  declares 
that  both  the  number  of  apprentices  and  the  term  of  appren- 
ticeship shall  be  regulated  by  the  branches,^^^  but  the  con- 
stitution of  1905  fixes  the  maximum  number  that  local 
unions  may  permit  to  learn  the  trade  and  establishes  a 
definite  term  of  apprenticeship.^^^  While  bills  of  prices  are 
drawn  up  by  each  local  union  or  state  association,  they  must 

115  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  December,  1905,  p.  3.  One  of  the 
earliest  constitutions  of  the  Bricklayers  declared  that  the  national 
union  was  the  supreme  head  of  all  the  local  unions,  and  that  the 
by-laws  of  the  local  unions  must  be  submitted  to  the  president  of 
the  national  union  before  adoption  (Constitution,  1867,  art.  xiii, 
sec.  4). 

116  Constitution,  1888,  art.  xxix,  p.  28. 

117  Constitution,  1888,  sees,  i,  2. 

118  Constitution,  1897,  sec.  132,  p.  33. 
11®  Constitution,  1905,  sec.  143,  p.  48. 


TERRITORIAL  JURISDICTION  39 

be  approved  by  the  national  union  before  they  can  become 
effective.^2^  All  the  funds  collected  by  the  local  unions  of 
granite  cutters  must  be  kept  in  the  name  of  the  national 
union,^^^  and  the  executive  committee  of  the  national  union 
may  investigate  the  books  or  the  condition  of  any  branch  at 
any  time  it  desires. ^^^  The  local  unions  of  the  Granite 
Cutters  may  not  strike  without  permission  from  the  national  '^"~ 
union,  and  even  after  having  obtained  this  consent,  they  may 
be  ordered  back  to  work  at  the  discretion  of  the  national 
union  if  its  decision  be  supported  by  the  votes  of  its 
members.^^^  According  to  the  constitution  of  1909, 
branches  cannot  make  any  binding  local  rules  unless  they 
are  first  approved  by  the  national  union.^^*  Finally,  it  has 
been  declared  that  at  meetings  of  local  unions  national  union 
business  must  take  precedence  over  all  local  business.^^' 

120  Constitution,  1896,  art.  xii,  sec.  2. 
^21  Constitution,  1896,  art.  xiii,  sec.  i. 

122  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  7. 

123  Constitution,  1880,  art.  xiii. 

124  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  140. 

125  Constitution,  1877,  art.  xxv. 


I 


CHAPTER   II 
Trade  Jurisdiction 

Trade  jurisdiction  has  been  defined  as  the  field  of  labor 
over  which  a  union  claims  exclusive  control.  It  is  the 
complement  of  territorial  jurisdiction;  that  is  to  say,  the 
trade  jurisdiction  of  a  union  means  that  work  over  which 
the  union  claims  authority  within  a  given  territory,  and 
conversely  territorial  jurisdiction  implies  control  of  a  cer- 
tain extent  of  country  with  respect  to  specified  trades  or 
crafts.  In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  sought  to  analyze 
the  concept  of  territorial  jurisdiction,  as  used  by  trade 
unions,  and  to  ascertain  the  underlying  principles  which 
determine  the  extent  and  control  of  the  territory  of  a  union. 
Here  an  endeavor  will  be  made  to  set  forth  the  considera- 
tions involved  in  the  claim  of  a  union  to  a  trade,  pointing 
out  upon  what  grounds  such  claims  are  based. 

This  study  will  make  no  attempt  to  list  the  complete 
jurisdictional  claims  of  any  union,  for  this  detailed  informa- 
tion can  readily  be  obtained  elsewhere,  and  even  if  such 
claims  were  to  be  enumerated,  they  are  changing  so  rapidly 
and  continuously  that  by  the  time  the  catalogue  of  jurisdic- 
tion had  been  made  it  would  be  incomplete  and  inexact.  If 
the  purpose  of  this  study  is  accomplished,  certain  criteria 
will  have  been  obtained  by  which,  given  any  piece  of  work, 
we  can  determine  what  unions  may  be  expected  to  lay 
claim  to  it.  As  this  statement  intimates,  several  unions  may 
assert  jurisdiction  over  the  same  class  of  work,  each,  of 
course,  usually  having  some  justification  for  its  claim.  The 
result  is  a  jurisdictional  dispute.  But  in  the  present  chapter 
the  matter  will  not  be  pursued  so  far  as  that;  the  concern 
here  is  with  the  grounds  upon  which  these  claims  are 
justified,  reserving  for  later  treatment  a  more  detailed  study 
of  the  actual  controversies  arising  from  the  claims. 

The  essence  of  jurisdiction  is  exclusiveness.     To  say  that 

40 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  4 1 

a  trade  or  craft  is  controlled  by  several  distinct  organiza- 
tions would  be  meaningless  and  would  involve  an  incorrect 
use  of  the  word  "jurisdiction."  The  mere  fact  that  labor 
organizations  specify  the  work  over  which  they  claim  con- 
trol is  evidence  that  such  control  is  regarded  as  exclusive, 
for  if  this  were  not  the  case  and  the  work  were  open  in- 
differently to  all,  there  would  be  no  need  to  register  or  to 
specify  the  work  which  a  union  claimed  the  right  to  do. 
The  "  trade  union  "  or  "  craft  union  "  claims  for  its  members 
the  exclusive  right  to  engage  in  a  particular  trade  or  group 
of  closely  allied  trades.  In  the  industrial  unions,  such  as 
the  Mine  Workers  or  the  Brewery  Workmen,  this  idea  of 
the  exclusiveness  of  jurisdiction  persists.  There  is  simply 
an  enlargement  of  the  unit  or  field  over  which  the  exclusive 
authority  is  asserted.  The  Mine  Workers,  instead  of  claim- 
ing control  over  a  trade,  declare  that  their  jurisdiction  covers 
the  whole  industry  of  mining,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the 
Brewery  Workmen  with  regard  to  the  brewing  industry.^ 

The  "  closed  union "  rests  its  case  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  union  has  an  exclusive  right  to  the  trade,  and  can 
therefore  determine  under  what  conditions  outsiders  may 
be  admitted  to  the  work,  or  can  exclude  them  entirely.  The 
"  closed  shop  "  is  the  doctrine  of  the  right  to  a  trade  pushed 
to  the  extent  of  claiming  for  members  of  the  union  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  the  work  that  is  to  be  done  in  a  shop  or 
plant.     These  are  both  forms  of  pressure  designed  to  make 

1  As  illustrating  the  conception  which  unions  have  of  the  exclu- 
siveness of  jurisdiction,  the  following  quotations  are  apropos  :  "  The 
Building  Trades  Council  controls  the  entire  building  industry,  from 
the  foundation  to  the  roof,  including  the  repairs  and  alterations  of 
the  same.  It  will  tolerate  no  interference  from  any  other  body  of 
miscellaneous  trades  or  callings.  .  .  .  The  Building  Trades  Council 
can  not  and  will  not  divide  responsibility  with  any  central  body 
made  up  of  diverse  trades  and  callings"  (Preamble,  Constitution, 
Building  Trades  Council,  1902).  "Recognizing  the  justice  of  trade 
jurisdiction,  we  aim  to  guarantee  to  the  various  branches  of  the 
building  industry  control  of  such  work  as  rightfully  belongs  to 
them,  and  to  which  they  are  justly  entitled"  (Constitution,  Building 
Trades  Department,  1909,  sec.  3,  p.  3). 


42        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

the  control  of  the  unions  over  certain  work  more  complete, 
and  they  presuppose  the  claim  of  jurisdiction  over  such 
work.  The  concern  here,  however,  is  not  with  the  mani- 
festations of  the  idea  of  jurisdiction  in  the  form  of  the 
"closed  union''  or  the  "closed  shop."  These  phases  of 
the  subject  have  been  exhaustively  treated  by  other  writers.^ 
We  deal  here  only  with  the  right  of  jurisdiction  on  the  part 
of  one  trade  union  against  another,  that  is,  the  interunion 
aspect  of  jurisdiction.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  term 
"jurisdiction"  is  commonly  used  by  trade  unionists. 

The  claim  on  the  part  of  the  union  to  exclusive  authority 
over  its  trade  or  industry,  more  than  any  other  feature  of 
trade  unionism,  arouses  opposition  among  those  who  are 
not  members  of  labor  organizations.  This  state  of  mind 
finds  expression  in  such  phrases  as  "the  tyranny  of  labor 
unions;"  in  the  criticism  that  "the  unions  take  away  in- 
dividual liberty;"  and  in  the  objection  that  "they  have  no 
right  to  prevent  or  to  interfere  with  the  work  of  the  non- 
unionist."  This  interference  with  individual  liberty  un- 
doubtedly exists,  and  whether  it  can  be  defended  as  a  matter 
of  social  justice  is  a  question  for  the  philosopher  to  deter- 
mine; as  a  matter  of  union  policy  and  looked  at  from  the 
union  point  of  view  it  is  defended  on  the  grounds  of  utility 
and  expediency.  It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  go  into  the 
argument  at  length  or  to  attempt  to  justify  trade  unionism 
as  opposed  to  individualism,  but  we  wish  to  point  out  the 
grounds  upon  which  each  union  claims  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion over  its  particular  trade. 

The  idea  of  exclusive  control  probably  goes  back  his- 
torically to  the  English  gilds  or  trade  societies,  each  of 
which  had  a  legalized  monopoly  of  its  particular  craft.  The 
modern  labor  organization  began,  as  has  been  said  in 
another  connection,  as  a  group  of  men  who  were  for  the 

2  For  discussions  of  the  "  closed  union "  and  the  "  closed  shop," 
see  F.  E.  Wolfe,  "  Admission  to  American  Trade  Unions,"  in  Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  ser.  xxx,  no.  3,  and  F.  T.  Stockton, 
"The  Closed  Shop  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  in  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  ser.  xxix,  no.  3. 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  43 

most  part  engaged  in  the  same  kind  of  work,  but  whose 
association  did  not  claim  exclusive  control  over  such  work. 
However,  men  who  had  devoted  years  of  time  and  effort  to 
acquiring  a  knowledge  of  a  particular  trade  felt  that  they 
had  a  property  right  in  the  trade,  and  gradually  the  unions, 
with  increase  in  membership  and  growth  of  power,  came 
to  feel  that  they  represented  the  sum  of  these  individual 
interests,  and  that  they  were  entitled  to  full  control  of  the 
craft.  A  corollary  of  this  proposition  was  the  principle 
that  no  other  association  would  be  permitted  in  the  trade,  or, 
in  other  words,  that  each  union  was  to  have  exclusive  juris- 
diction. 

As  against  individuals,  the  claim  of  exclusive  jurisdiction 
takes  the  form  that  every  person  engaged  in  a  certain  trade 
who  is  not  a  member  of  the  union  is,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  union,  trespassing  on  its  jurisdiction,  and  so 
far  as  it  is  within  its  power  the  union  will  force  such 
individuals  to  join  the  union  or  leave  the  trade.  Obviously 
this  pressure  will  be  little  felt  by  non-unionists  in  a  district 
or  on  a  piece  of  work  where  the  union  is  weaker  in  numbers 
or  strategic  position  than  are  those  outside  the  organization. 
Where  the  union  is  in  control  and  its  pressure  is  severely 
felt,  the  non-unionists  are  in  the  minority  either  in  numbers 
or  influence,  and  hence,  it  is  argued,  have  no  valid  reason  for 
complaint  when  their  freedom  of  action  is  restrained,  since 
the  exercise  of  that  freedom  might  jeopardize  the  success 
of  the  union,  which  represents  the  majority.  The  situation 
is  compared  to  that  of  a  city  which,  entirely  setting  aside  in- 
dividual rights  or  desires,  might  enforce  vaccination  or  other 
prophylactic  or  sanitary  measures  for  the  safety  of  the 
majority.  The  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number  is  the 
justification  offered  for  the  claim  by  a  union  to  exclusive 
jurisdiction  over  a  specified  trade. 

This  priority  of  right  or  claim  against  non-unionists  is 
also  asserted  against  members  of  other  unions,  for  these  are 
non-unionists  so  far  as  the  particular  trade  is  concerned. 
Indeed,  the  feeling  is  often  more  bitter  against  infringe- 


44        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

ments  by  other  union  men  than  against  those  by  non- 
unionists,  and  reprisal  is  usually  more  certain  and  severe. 

But  to  make  effective  any  form  of  restraint  against  en- 
croachment requires  action  by  a  group  of  men.  As  long  as 
men  worked  as  individuals  they  could  do  little,  and,  having 
merely  their  individual  interests  to  consider,  they  would  be 
inclined  to  try  to  do  little  to  prevent  workmen  in  another 
trade  from  trespassing  upon  what  they  regarded  as  their 
particular  work.  With  the  growth  of  unionism  in  a  craft 
and  the  development  of  a  common  interest  there  comes  not 
only  the  feeling  that  the  union  is  charged  with  the  task  of 
protecting  the  interests  of  its  individual  members,  but  also 
the  power  in  many  cases  to  do  so.  This  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  jurisdictional  disputes  tend  to  increase,  one 
might  say,  in  geometrical  progression  with  the  increase  in 
the  number  and  strength  of  the  unions. 

It  becomes  necessary,  then,  when  a  union  is  organized,  to 
specify  the  work  over  which  it  claims  jurisdiction  for  the 
twofold  purpose  of  attracting  into  its  association  all  those 
engaged  in  that  line  of  work,  and  at  the  same  time  of  warn- 
ing members  of  other  unions  not  to  infringe  upon  this  field. 
On  account  of  the  rapid  changes  in  the  methods  of  work, 
more  extensive  use  of  machinery,  the  introduction  of  new 
forms  of  the  division  of  labor,  the  use  of  new  materials,^ 

3  In  a  prospectus  of  the  Building  Trades  Department,  Secretary 
Spencer  said :  "  Demand  for  cheap  labor  has  transformed  the  build- 
ing trade  from  its  old  line  of  construction  and  compelled  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Building  Trades  Department.  The  inventive  mind  of 
man  is  so  specializing  the  work  upon  the  building  that  the  basic 
mechanic  of  a  few  years  ago  represents  the  lowest  per  cent,  of  labor 
on  the  structure.  The  architect  and  contractor  today  are  steadily 
seeking  to  lower  the  cost  of  the  building  by  the  employment  of 
cheaper  men,  and  to  this  end  they  are  effacing  the  skilled  portions 
of  every  trade  by  the  substitution  of  materials,  the  construction  and 
installation  of  which  can  be  performed  by  men  of  scarcely  any 
training.  Naturally  the  heirs  of  building  specialties  and  tributary 
trades  are  those  men  of  the  primary  or  basic  trades  that  are  in- 
tended to  be  displaced  by  the  employment  of  a  specialty,  but  here- 
tofore   by  reason  of  a  want  of  understanding,  the  building  trades 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  45 

and  the  increasing  number  of  unions,  trade  lines  have  be- 
come so  intertwined  that  it  grows  each  year  increasingly 
necessary  for  each  union  to  specify  clearly  its  jurisdiction 
claims.  These  claims  are  also  continually  becoming  more 
definite  and  detailed,  as  can  be  seen  by  comparing  the  work 
claimed  to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  union  in  the  early 
history  of  the  organization  with  that  listed  more  recently. 

The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners/ 
furnishes  a  good  example.  During  the  first  few  years  of 
its  existence  no  specific  claim  to  jurisdiction  was  made 
except  such  as  was  implied  in  the  title  of  the  union,  it  being 
assumed  that  every  person  knew  what  work  belonged  to  the 
carpenter  and  joiner.  In  1886,*  five  years  after  its  organi- 
zation, we  have  the  earliest  attempt  of  this  union  to  cata- 
logue its  work,  in  the  following  words :  "  Those  persons  are 
eligible  to  membership,  who  are  competent  carpenters  and 
joiners,  engaged  at  wood  work;  and  also  any  stair  builder, 
millwright,  planing  mill  bench-hand,  or  any  cabinet  maker 
engaged  at  carpenter  work,  or  any  carpenter  running  wood 
working  machinery  shall  be  eligible."  If  one  compares  this 
general  statement  as  to  jurisdiction  with  any  of  the  juris- 
diction claims  made  by  this  union  during  the  past  two  or 
three  years,  which  are  too  long  to  be  quoted  here  (one  sec- 
tion, that  defining  the  work  of  the  millwrights,  requiring 
about  six  hundred  words^),  he  will  get  an  idea  of  the  detail 
and  particularity  with  which  trade  jurisdiction  is  now 
expressed. 

While  the  increase  in  the  number  and  in  the  strength  of 

have  countenanced  the  adoption  of  these  specialties  to  the  extent 
that  the  members  of  the  various  unions  are  gradually  being  displaced 
by  younger  and  less  skilled  mechanics.  Acting  concertedly,  further 
trade  disintegration  can  be  prevented,  since  surely  the  right  of  the 
affected  workmen  to  be  consulted  as  to  the  division  of  the  main  or 
basic  trades  into  subordinate  specialties  can  not  be  gainsaid,  or  their 
efforts  to  reclaim  such  specialties  denied." 

*  Constitution,  1886,  art.  vi,  sees,  i,  2. 

5  Folder  issued  by  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners, 
describing  the  jurisdiction  claims  of  the  millwrights  affiliated  with 
them. 


46        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

national  trade  unions  has  increased  the  difficulty  of  defining 
jurisdiction  and  has  made  the  controversies  arising  over 
jurisdiction  more  serious,  inasmuch  as  they  affect  large 
bodies  of  men  throughout  the  country,  the  formation  and 
extension  of  national  unions  tends  also  to  decrease  the  num- 
ber of  disputes,  since  it  brings  about  greater  clearness  and 
definiteness  in  the  registry  of  jurisdiction.  Obviously  the 
first  step  toward  preventing  overlapping  of  trades  is  to  de- 
scribe trade  boundaries  so  clearly  that  all  may  know  them. 
The  second  step  is  to  obtain  uniformity  in  these  claims.  As 
long  as  each  local  union  had  power  to  lay  down  its  own  lines 
of  demarcation  there  was  bound  to  be  uncertainty  and  con- 
fusion as  to  just  what  work  was  included  in  a  certain  trade.^ 
The  early  history  of  most  of  the  building-trades  unions 
shows  that  to  a  large  extent  the  determination  of  the  work 
belonging  to  the  trade  was  left  to  the  local  unions,  but  the 
strengthening  of  the  central  union  at  the  expense  of  the 
local  unions  has  resulted  now  in  the  general  practice  of 
having  a  single  statement  of  jurisdiction  emanating  from 
the  national  union  which  is  binding  upon  all  its  local  unions. 
The  history  of  the  Bricklayers  offers  illustrations  of  the 
differences  likely  to  exist  when  claims  to  work  are  made 
separately  by  the  local  unions.  The  national  union  for 
many  years  contented  itself  with  laying  down  a  few  general 
principles  of  trade  jurisdiction  broadly  defining  the  lowest 
limit  of  jurisdiction,  and  permitted  the  various  local  unions 
to  determine  details  and  larger  claims  as  to  work.  As  a 
result  we  find  the  Paterson  branch  describing  bricklayers* 
work  thus  :^  "  All  fireproofing,  cutting,  fitting  and  setting  of 

®  The  National  Building  Trades  Council  sought  to  obtain  a  clear 
statement  of  jurisdiction  by  the  following  provision:  "All  organi- 
zations affiliated  with  any  local  Building  Trades  Council  shall  plainly 
and  satisfactorily  define  the  class  of  work  they  claim,  and  no  trade 
will  be  permitted  to  do  the  work  pertaining  to  another.  Each  trade 
will  be  obliged  to  classify  the  work  claimed,  and  file  same  with  the 
secretary  of  the  local  building  trades  council"  (Constitution,  1900, 
art.  iv,  sec.  7). 

^  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  April,  1902,  p.  3. 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  4/ 

terra  cotta  and  cutting  of  brick  work  and  mason  work," 
while  the  Philadelphia  local  union  enumerated  as  its  juris- 
diction "the  cutting  out  and  pointing  of  all  brick  work, 
the  cutting  of  all  joist  holes,  chases,  etc.,  fireproofing,  block- 
arching,  the  cutting,  setting  and  fitting  of  all  terra  cotta  and 
rock  face  brick  when  cut  on  the  premises,  and  the  backing 
up  of  same  (except  when  backed  with  stonemasonry)  and 
the  setting  of  cut  stone  trimmings,  such  as  sills,  beads  and 
blocks  that  do  not  require  cutting  and  fitting,  and  can  be 
carried  by  two  men."  Some  local  unions  did  pointing  and 
cleaning  of  brick  walls,  while  others  refused  to  do  this 
work.  In  St.  Louis  this  refusal  led  to  the  organization  of 
the  Tuck  Pointers'  Union,  and  caused  the  national  union  a 
good  deal  of  trouble  that  could  have  been  avoided  if  there 
had  been  a  complete  statement  of  jurisdiction  by  the  national 
union  such  as  it  made  later. 

President  Huber,  of  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Car- 
penters, in  his  report  to  the  convention  of  1904,  said  of  the 
difficulty  with  the  Amalgamated  Wood  Workers  in  regard 
to  the  mill  men,  over  whom  both  unions  claimed  jurisdic- 
tion: "This  mill  question  is  one  of  the  most  knotty  and 
intricate  problems  that  confront  our  Brotherhood  today. 
...  In  many  localities  we  find  that  the  outside  carpenters 
are  heartily  in  favor  of  lending  a  helping  hand  to  bring 
about  the  desired  results  [the  unionizing  of  the  mill  men] ; 
in  other  localities  the  outside  carpenters  have  no  use  what- 
ever for  the  man  working  in  the  mills."® 

In  the  early  history  of  the  Steam  Fitters  a  good  deal  of 
local  variation  as  to  what  constituted  the  work  of  the  trade 
grew  up  because  the  union  left  the  definition  of  steam  fitters' 
work  entirely  to  the  local  unions."  The  Stone  Cutters, 
when  they  sought  to  draw  up  a  national  schedule  of  juris- 
diction, experienced  considerable  difficulty  in  having  it  ac- 
cepted because  of  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  practice  of 
its  local  unions.^®    A  member  of  the  branch  at  Uniontown, 

8  Proceedings,  1904.  P-  Z7- 

®  Proceedings,  in  The  Steam  Fitter,  September,  1899,  p.  5. 

^0  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  January,  1891,  p.  2. 


48        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

writing  to  the  Stone  Cutters'  Circular  in  1892,  commented 
on  a  dispute  at  East  Saginaw  over  the  setting  of  cut  stone, 
and  said  that  stone  cutters  in  general  did  not  claim  this 
work  and  that  it  belonged  to  the  masons.^^  On  the  other 
hand  the  local  union  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie  reported  that  its 
members  were  working  on  a  building  on  which  they  were 
cutting  and  setting  the  stone.^^  Most  of  the  Stone  Cutters' 
local  unions  claim  only  exterior  stone  work,  but  the  branch 
at  Knoxville,  Tennessee,  reported  in  1898  that  it  did  both 
exterior  and  interior  work.^^  The  union  at  Cobleskill,  New 
York,  reported  in  1902  that  it  was  working  on  a  hard  gray 
limestone  which,  when  shipped  to  New  York  City,  was  con- 
trolled by  the  Granite  Cutters.^* 

The  chief  interest,  however,  of  local  trade  jurisdiction  at 
the  present  time  is  found  in  those  national  unions,  such  as 
the  Bricklayers,  Marble  Workers,  Carpenters,  and  Sheet 
Metal  Workers,  which  have  several  more  or  less  distinct 
crafts  within  their  organization.  Although  stonemasons 
and  bricklayers  are  organized  in  the  same  national  union, 
they  control  distinct  trades,  and  a  local  union  chartered  ex- 
clusively for  one  trade  has  no  jurisdiction  over  workmen 
engaged  in  the  other  branch  of  work.  Thus  the  constitution 
of  1891  provided  that  "  it  shall  not  be  obligatory  upon  brick- 
layers to  deposit  a  travelling  card  in  a  local  union  composed 
exclusively  of  stonemasons  in  a  locality  where  no  brick- 
layers' local  union  exists,  and  vice  versa."^^  The  extent  to 
which  this  separation  was  carried  is  shown  by  the  following 
incident.^^  A  New  York  City  bricklayer  appealed  to  the 
national  convention  of  the  Bricklayers  to  relieve  him  of  a 

11  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  February,  1892,  p.  6. 

12  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  July,  1895,  p.  5. 

13  Ibid.,  March,  1898,  p.  8. 

i*Ibid.,  December,  1902,  p.  10.  The  local  union  of  stone  cutters 
in  Springfield,  Illinois,  announced  that  it  had  taken  in  all  the  granite 
cutters  in  the  town,  since  there  was  not  work  enough  for  the  two 
unions,  and  since  some  of  the  stone  cutters  were  lettering  granite 
most  of  the  time  (ibid.,  March,  1901,  p.  8). 

15  Constitution,  1891,  art.  xiv,  sec.  i  ff . 

16  Proceedings,  1883,  p.  2. 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  49 

fine.  He  was  a  member  of  both  the  bricklayers'  and  the 
stonemasons'  unions,  and  when  his  job  as  bricklayer  was 
struck,  he  obtained  work  as  a  stonemason.  This  was  allow- 
able, but  when  he  drilled  some  holes  through  fireproof 
arches  for  gas  pipes,  the  bricklayers'  local  union  claimed 
that  he  was  doing  work  which  they  controlled,  and  accord- 
ingly fined  him.  More  recent  rules  provide  for  the  forma- 
tion of  mixed  local  unions  where  they  are  desired,  and  such 
branches  may  divide  their  work  among  bricklayers,  stone- 
masons, and  plasterers  as  they  deem  best,  though  in  arbi- 
trating any  points  of  differences^  the  suggestion  is  made 
that  all  questions  pertaining  to  the  trade  of  the  mason  shall 
be  settled  by  those  connected  therewith.^® 

The  jurisdiction  of  local  unions  of  Marble  Workers  is 
also  more  specialized  than  the  jurisdiction  of  the  national 
union.  When  a  local  union  applies  for  a  charter,  it  must 
designate  which  branch  of  the  industry  it  desires  to  control ; 
if  it  is  a  mixed  local  union,  each  member  must  be  registered 
in  one  branch  of  the  work,  as  cutter  and  setter,  polisher, 
bed-rubber,  helper,  machine  hand,  or  quarryman,  and  he  is 
restricted  to  the  work  for  which  he  registers.^^  A  similar 
restriction  is  found  in  the  Plumbers'  Association.  One  of 
the  clauses  of  the  constitution  is  this :  "  In  all  local  unions 
organized  separately  or  combined,  members  of  any  one  trade 
are  prohibited  from  working  at  that  of  another,  provided 
that  a  member  or  members  of  such  other  trade  can  be 
secured  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  local  union  in  the 
vicinity."2o 

The  Composition  Roofers  made  an  agreement  with  the 
Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  in  1908  under  which  local  unions, 
composed  of  members  of  each  national  union,  might  be 
established.  Although  the  two  national  unions  still  main- 
tained their  jurisdiction  claims,  the  right  was  conceded  to 

1'^  Constitution,  1900,  art.  xviii,  sec.  2. 

^^  Constitution,  1901,  art.  ix,  sec.  3. 

i»  Constitution,  1902,  art.  iii,  sec.  14. 

20  Constitution,  1902,  art.  xxv,  sec.  25. 


50        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

such  mixed  local  unions  to  determine  by  majority  vote 
whether  the  members  should  be  permitted  to  work  at  each 
others'  trade.  This  privilege  could  be  exercised  only 
within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  mixed  union.^^ 

Outside  of  the  considerations  here  dwelt  upon,  local  trade 
jurisdiction  is  a  matter  scarcely  to  be  reckoned  with,  and 
when  one  speaks  of  the  trade  jurisdiction  of  a  union  he 
refers  to  the  work  claimed  by  the  national  union.  The 
Building  Trades  Department  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  requires  all  affiliated  national  unions  to  file  their 
jurisdiction  claims  at  its  office,  and  these  statements  are 
regarded  as  the  official  definitions  of  the  various  trades.  If 
the  building  industry  were  stationary,  these  claims  once 
established  would  be  valid  for  all  time,  and  jurisdictional 
disputes  would  soon  come  to  be  merely  of  historical  in- 
terest. But  the  industry  is  not  fixed,  and  changes  in 
methods,  materials,  and  skill  come  about  with  so  much 
rapidity  that  the  building-trades  unions  are  unable  to  adapt 
their  jurisdictional  claims  without  friction.  Constantly 
confronted  by  the  knowledge  that  parts  of  their  trades  are 
being  permanently  taken  away  from  them  by  new  methods, 
they  must  always  be  on  the  lookout  for  new  work  to  take 
their  place.^^  Secretary  McGuire,  of  the  Brotherhood  of 
Carpenters,  in  speaking  of  the  need  of  expansion  to  cover 
all  parts  of  their  work,  said  in  1894:  "  Year  after  year  car- 
penter work  is  becoming  less  and  less  plentiful  owing  to 
recent  innovations  in  architectural  construction.  With  the 
introduction  of  iron  and  steel  frames  in  the  larger  buildings, 
with  iron  and  stone  staircases,  tile  floors  and  tile  or  metal 

21  Proceedings,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  1908,  resolution  81. 

22  A  curious  example  of  the  way  in  which  changed  methods  and 
materials  are  causing  jurisdictional  disputes  is  seen  in  a  conflict 
which  has  occasionally  arisen  between  the  Painters  and  the  Elec- 
trical Workers.  Until  recently  all  signs  were  made  of  wood  and 
painted,  and  this  work  was  of  course  regarded  as  belonging  to  the 
Painters,  but  lately  electric  signs  have  come  into  vogue  and  are 
rapidly  replacing  the  painted  ones,  and  this  new  work  is  now  claimed 
by  the  Electrical  Workers  (Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Depart- 
ment, 1912,  p.  94). 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  5  I 

wainscoting,  with  cornices  and  bay  windows  in  many  cases 
of  other  materials  than  wood,  and  with  numerous  other 
changes  going  on  .  .  .  the  increase  and  perfection  of  wood- 
working machinery  .  .  .  the  chances  for  the  steady  employ- 
ment of  carpenters  are  extremely  uncertain."^^ 

What  is  true  of  the  carpenters'  trade  is  equally  true  of 
nearly  all  the  other  building  trades.  The  stone  which  was 
formerly  cut  "on  the  job"  is  now  shipped  in,  ready  to  be 
placed  in  the  wall,  or  it  may  be  that  the  "  stone  "  is  made 
up  in  the  required  shape  from  cement;  the  plasterer  who 
formerly  put  on  the  lath  as  well  as  the  plaster  is  now  re- 
stricted to  the  latter  work,  and  indeed  finds  himself 
threatened  by  substitutes  for  plaster  which  come  in  sections 
ready  to  be  attached  to  the  wall ;  the  plumber  finds  the  skill 
formerly  required  for  his  trade  rendered  useless  because 
most  of  the  parts  used  in  plumbing  are  made  in  a  factory 
and  can  be  connected  without  much  knowledge  of  the  trade ; 
even  the  hod  carrier  finds  his  work  much  lessened  by  the 
use  of  lifts  which  are  operated  by  the  hoisting  engineers. 
When  in  addition  it  is  recalled  that  new  kinds  of  work  are 
constantly  arising — such,  for  instance,  as  those  connected 
with  the  installation  of  vacuum  cleaning  and  fire  protection 
apparatus,  with  new  arrangements  for  heating  and  lighting, 
and  with  the  various  uses  of  cement — it  will  be  seen  that  it 
is  a  task  of  considerable  difficulty  to  determine  just  what 
are  the  bounds  of  each  trade. 

Let  us,  as  a  preliminary  step,  construct  in  imagination  a 
modern  office  building  and  learn,  from  their  statements  as 
to  jurisdiction,  which  unions  lay  claim  to  the  various  parts 
of  the  work.  From  these  different  claims  the  general 
grounds  upon  which  such  claims  are  based  may  be  ascer- 
tained. The  work  of  excavation,  requiring  mainly  un- 
skilled labor,  is  claimed  by  the  Hod  Carriers'  and  Building 
Laborers'  Union,^*  and,  except  where  the  excavation  is  so 

23  Proceedings,  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  1894,  P-  27. 
2*  Jurisdiction    Claims    of    Unions    Affiliated    with    the    Building 
Trades  Department,  published  by  the  Department  in  191 1,  p.  10. 


52        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

deep  that  a  hoisting  engine  or  other  machine  is  needed  to 
bring  up  the  dirt,  it  may  be  regarded  as  conceded  to  this 
union.  If  the  foundation  walls  are  built  of  stone,  they  will 
be  claimed  by  the  stonemasons,  who  are  a  part  of  the 
Bricklayers'  and  Masons'  Union,  since  the  jurisdiction 
claimed  by  this  union  covers  the  setting  of  all  stone.^*^  If 
the  foundation  had  been  of  brick,  the  work  would  have  been 
controlled  by  the  same  national  union.  If  the  foundation 
had  been  of  concrete,  the  Cement  Workers  would  have  laid 
claim  to  the  work,^*^  while  the  Bricklayers'  and  Masons' 
Union  would  also  have  been  likely  to  demand  control  of  it, 
on  the  ground  that  the  concrete  was  being  used  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  brick  or  stone. 

The  framework  of  the  building,  being  of  structural  steel 
and  iron,  will  be  conceded  to  the  Bridge  and  Structural 
Iron  Workers'  Union.^^  For  the  outside  walls,  if  granite 
be  used,  the  stone  must  be  cut  by  the  Granite  Cutters,  who 
have  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  cutting  of  that  ma- 
terial.2®  If  a  sandstone  or  any  stone  softer  than  granite  is 
used,  the  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  Association  will  con- 
trol the  cutting,^^  though  this  may  be  contested  in  some 
cases  by  the  stonemasons,  who  claim  that  very  often  it  is 
necessary,  or  at  least  expedient,  for  them  to  cut  stone  in 
connection  with  setting  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Stone 
Cutters  may  claim  the  placing  of  the  stone  in  the  wall  on 
the  score  that  the  setting  of  stone  is  a  branch  of  the  stone 
cutter's  art,  but  generally  stone  setting  is  yielded  to  the 
masons. 

The  roof,  if  made  of  composition,  slag,  or  other  roofing 
material  such  as  asphalt  and  gravel,  will  be  built  under  the 
control  of  the  Composition  Roofers,  who  have  jurisdiction 
over  the  placing  of  this  roofing  material  f^  if  the  roof  is  of 

25  Constitution  of  the  Bricklayers'  and  Masons'  Union. 

26  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  6. 

27  Ibid.,  p.  3. 

28  Ibid.,  p.  9. 

29  Ibid.,  p.  17. 
80  Ibid.,  p.  16. 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  53 

slate  or  tile,  it  is  conceded  to  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers.^^ 
The  floors  are  likely  to  be  of  reinforced  concrete.  In  that 
case  the  Carpenters  will  claim  the  building  of  all  moulds 
and  forms  ;^2  the  mixing  and  the  handling  of  the  concrete 
will  be  demanded  by  both  the  Cement  Workers  and  the 
Hod  Carriers,  while  the  Bricklayers  will  contend  that  such 
work  ought  to  be  done  under  the  direction  of  a  bricklayer 
foreman.  Finally,  the  metal  sheathing  which  forms  the 
basis  for  the  concrete  is  claimed  both  by  the  Lathers^^  and 
by  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers.  If  the  floors  are  made  of 
wood,  they  will  be  conceded  to  the  Carpenters  as  their  work. 
The  lathing  of  the  building  will  be  done  by  the  Wood,  Wire 
and  Metal  Lathers,  though  on  one  side  this  work  approaches 
closely  the  trade  line  of  the  carpenter,  and  on  the  other  that 
of  the  sheet  metal  worker. 

The  painting  and  the  decorating  of  the  building  will  be 
claimed  by  the  Painters,^*  although  the  putting  up  of  picture 
molding  is  demanded  by  the  Carpenters  on  the  ground  that 
the  material  is  wood  and  is  attached  by  the  use  of  car- 
penters' tools.  The  placing  of  the  hollow  metal  doors  and 
sash  throughout  the  building  will  be  considered  by  the  Car- 
penters as  belonging  to  their  trade  because  this  work  re- 
quires the  use  of  their  tools  and  their  skill  and  because  the 
use  of  sheet  metal  is  displacing  what  was  formerly  car- 
penters' work,^^  while  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  regard  this 
as  part  of  their  trade,  inasmuch  as  they  manufacture  this 
material  and  do  nothing  but  handle  sheet  metal,  so  that  they 
have  the  skill  necessary  to  erect  it.^^  Plumbing,  heating, 
and  lighting  are  trades  not  very  difficult  to  distinguish,  but 
if  a  vacuum  cleaning  system,  a  sprinkler  system,  or  some 
other  extension  of  one  of  these  older  trades  is  to  be  in- 

31  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  16. 

32  Ibid.,  p.  5. 

33  Ibid.,  p.  II. 

34  Ibid.,  p.  13. 

35  Constitution,  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  1911. 
3«  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  13. 


54        JURISDICTION   IN  AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

stalled,  difficulties  arise.  The  Steam  Fitters  maintain  that 
custom  ought  to  be  the  guide,  that  is,  that  it  should  be 
ascertained  which  trade  group  was  originally  regarded  as 
the  most  competent  to  do  the  work,  as  evidenced  by  the 
choice  of  the  builder.  The  Plumbers  would  also  claim  this 
work  on  the  ground  that  they  have  men  in  their  organiza- 
tion who  practice  these  trades,  and  that  the  whole  pipe- 
fitting  industry  ought  to  be  united  under  their  jurisdiction, 
but  this  complication  arises  out  of  the  existence  of  dual 
associations,  and  is  not  due  to  uncertain  trade  lines. 

The  construction  of  the  elevators  will  be  claimed  in  its 
entirety  by  the  Elevator  Constructors,^^  but  this  demand  will 
be  opposed  for  different  parts  of  the  work  by  the  Electrical 
Workers,  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  the  Machinists,  the 
Structural  Iron  Workers,  and  the  Carpenters,  each  of  these 
unions  claiming  such  part  of  the  work  as  it  regards  as  lying 
within  its  trade.  The  Elevator  Constructors  maintain  that 
the  whole  work  is  so  closely  connected  that  it  cannot  be 
conveniently  or  properly  performed  in  parts  by  different 
trades.  The  plastering  of  the  building  will  be  conceded  to 
the  Plasterers,  since  the  work  of  applying  plastic  material 
to  walls  is  pretty  well  defined.  However,  if  certain  forms 
of  decorative  plaster,  which  are  made  up  in  factories  and 
cast  in  sections  all  ready  to  be  nailed  to  the  wall,  are  used, 
the  Plasterers  will  still  insist  on  the  control  of  the  work 
because  the  use  of  this  material  is  displacing  the  older 
form  of  plaster,^^  and  the  Carpenters  will  demand  it  on  the 
ground  that  to  nail  these  blocks  to  the  wall  is  essentially 
their  work  since  it  is  performed  with  their  tools.  The  in- 
terior marble  work  for  stairs,  mantels,  fireplaces,  and 
columns  will  be  done  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Marble 
Workers,  who  have  control  of  the  cutting  and  setting  of 
interior  marble  work,^^  whereas  if  the  same  material  were 
used  on  the  outside  of  the  building  the  Stone  Cutters  and 

87  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  8. 
38  Ibid.,  p.  14. 
89  Ibid.,  p.  12. 


TRADE   JURISDICTION  55. 

the  Masons  would  have  control.  The  erection  of  the 
scaffolding  used  in  various  stages  of  the  construction  of  the 
building  will  be  claimed  by  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Building 
Laborers  on  the  ground  that  it  requires  little  skill  and  is 
therefore  to  be  classed  as  laborers'  work;  by  the  Carpenters, 
because  carpenters'  tools  are  used ;  and,  when  scaffolding  is 
to  be  used  by  the  Marble  Workers,  by  the  Marble  Workers' 
Helpers  on  the  ground  that  the  erection  of  the  scaffolding 
is  closely  associated  with  the  placing  of  the  marble. 

The  varieties  of  work  upon  a  modern  office  building  have 
been  by  no  means  exhausted,  but  enough  has  been  said  to 
show  that  over  and  over  again  a  few  main  considerations 
are  relied  upon  to  justify  a  union's  claim  to  jurisdiction  over 
any  given  work.  These  are  (i)  the  materials  employed, 
(2)  the  tools  used,  (3)  the  sanction  of  custom,  (4)  the 
skill  required,  (5)  the  fact  that  the  work  under  considera- 
tion replaces  work  heretofore  done  by  the  union,  and  (6) 
the  fact  that  the  work  in  question  is  so  closely  associated 
with  other  work  as  to  be  most  conveniently  and  economically 
performed  in  connection  with  it. 

These  criteria  being  recognized,  their  validity  may  be 
tested  by  a  critical  examination  of  the  jurisdiction  claimed 
by  some  of  the  more  important  building-trades  unions.  In 
this  analysis  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  present  the  entire 
jurisdiction  claims  of  any  one  union;  merely  such  parts  of 
its  claims  w^ill  be  used  as  are  important  for  the  present 
purpose,  which  is  to  show  that  in  formulating  its  trade 
claims  a  union  is  guided  by  one  or  more,  perhaps  all,  of  the 
above-mentioned  considerations. 

The  Granite  Cutters  claim  jurisdiction  over  the  cutting 
and  polishing  of  granite  and  of  all  similar  hard  stone  on 
which  granite  cutters'  tools  are  used,  and  over  all  tool 
sharpeners  associated  with  the  trade.*^  This  statement 
shows  the  presence  of  three  of  our  determinants.  First,  the 
union    controls    work   on    granite    and    similar   materials. 

*o  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  10. 


56        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

Second,  if  granite  cutting  tools  are  used,  the  work  is 
claimed.  This  test  is  merely  supplementary  to  the  first  one, 
for  the  fact  that  granite  cutting  tools  are  used  is  here  simply 
the  guide  for  determining  whether  the  material  is  such  as 
the  union  controls.  Third,  the  sharpening  of  granite 
cutters'  tools  is  included  because  this  work  is  so  closely 
connected  with  granite  cutting  as  to  be  best  controlled  by  the 
same  union. 

The  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers  assert  jurisdic- 
tion as  follows :  "  Wrecking  and  excavating  of  buildings 
.  .  .  digging  of  foundation  holes  .  .  .  concrete  work  for 
buildings,  whether  for  foundations  or  floors  .  .  .  helping 
masons,  plasterers,  bricklayers,  and  carpenters  .  .  .  handling 
of  materials."*^  This  jurisdiction  may  be  classified  as 
based  on  a  negative  use  of  one  of  the  determinants.  It  is 
the  absence  of  skill  of  a  specialized  nature  which  marks  out 
the  work  of  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers.  Any 
work  about  a  building  operation  which  requires  no  special 
training  may  be  put  down  as  building  laborers'  work.'*^ 

The  field  over  which  the  Bricklayers  exercise  authority  is 
divided  into  three  parts:  bricklaying,  stonemasonry,  and 
plastering.  Bricklaying  is  said  to  consist  of  the  laying  of 
bricks  in  any  structure  or  for  any  purpose  where  trowel  and 
mortar  are  used,  all  cleaning  and  cutting  of  brick  walls  and 
work  upon  brick  requiring  the  labor  of  a  skilled  person,  fire- 
proofing,  terra-cotta  cutting  and  setting,  the  laying  and 
cutting  of  cork  blocks,  mineral  wool,  and  all  substitutes  for 
such  materials,  and  the  erection  of  plaster  block  partitions 
where  they  are  substituted  for  brick.*^     Stonemasons'  work 

*i  Constitution,  1903,  art.  viii,  sec.  i, 

*2  In  the  dispute  over  the  jurisdiction  on  concrete  work  between 
the  Hod  Carriers  and  the  Cement  Workers,  the  Cement  Workers 
asked  that  they  be  given  jurisdiction  because  the  Hod  Carriers  were 
merely  helpers  to  the  bricklayers,  and  because  to  give  them  control 
over  concrete  would  be  to  put  the  industry  into  the  hands  of  its 
enemies,  the  Bricklayers,  who  have  been  continually  fighting  against 
the  use  of  concrete  in  building  (Proceedings,  Building  Trades  De- 
partment, 1908,  p.  yj). 

^3  Constitution,  1908,  art.  ii,  sec.  3. 


TRADE   JURISDICTION  5/ 

consists  of  the  laying  of  all  stone  and  the  cutting  of  ashlar, 
jambs,  and  corners.**  The  work  of  plastering  is  suffi- 
ciently clear  to  need  no  definition.*^  In  these  claims  are 
found  most  of  the  factors  mentioned  above.  Primarily,  the 
work  pertaining  to  the  bricklaying,  stonemasonry,  and 
plastering  trades  may  be  determined  in  general  according  to 
the  materials  used.  Bricklaying  is  marked  out  by  the  use 
of  the  trowel,  the  distinctive  implement  of  the  trade.  Skill 
is  a  determinant  in  that  all  "  work  upon  brick  requiring  the 
services  of  a  skilled  person"  is  claimed.  When  jurisdiction 
is  asserted  over  plaster  block  partition,  which  takes  the 
place  of  brick,*^  replacement  or  substitution  is  made  the 
test. 

The  Stone  Cutters  formerly  described  their  trade  as  "  all 
stone  work  on  which  a  mallet,  mash  hammer  and  chisel  are 
used,  shoddy  work  and  pitch-faced  ashlar  included."*^  To 
this  has  since  been  added  "  the  cutting  of  artificial  stone."*® 
In  these  claims  jurisdiction  is  determined  on  the  basis  of  the 
material  and  the  tools  used,  but  the  branch  of  the  Stone 
Cutters  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  was  fixing  trade  lines  according 
to  custom  when  it  reported  that  its  members  did  not  set 
stone,  since  "  it  has  always  been  the  custom  for  the  masons 
to  do  the  setting."*^ 

The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  has  probably  had 
a  greater  variety  of  trade  jurisdiction  disputes  than  any 
other  union.  This  has  been  due  partly  to  the  extension  of 
the  carpenter's  trade  in  so  many  directions,  and  partly  to 
the  fact  that  the  most  far-reaching  and  rapid  changes  in 

**  Constitution,  1897,  art.  x,  sec.  3.  The  convention  of  1898  de- 
cided that  all  stone  work,  such  as  monuments,  moldings,  fine-cut 
faced  work,  trimming,  lining,  and  carving  stone,  and  all  fine  stone 
cutting  is  stone  cutters'  work  and  not  masons'  work  (Proceedings, 
1898,  p.  45). 

45  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  April,  1900,  p.  12. 

*«Ibid.,  March,  1904,  p.  2. 

*'^  Constitution,  1900,  By-laws,  art.  xiii.   X 

*8  Constitution,  1905,  art.  xii. 

*^  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  March,  1905,  p.  10. 


58        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

methods  and  materials  in  the  building  industry  have 
centered  about  the  work  of  the  carpenter.  As  President 
Huber,  of  the  United  Brotherhood,  said  at  the  convention 
of  1910:  '\The  disputes  [jurisdiction]  generally  arise  over 
the  erection  of  certain  work  which  originally  belonged  to 
the  carpenters,  but  which  through  the  growth  of  the  build- 
ing industry  has  changed  form  to  such  an  extent  that  you 
could  not  say  unless  you  know  the  class  of  trade  which  put 
it  up,  to  what  trade  the  work  now  belongs.  'The  basic 
carpenter  trade  was  and  is  one  of  the  most  general  and 
complete  trades  which  a  man  can  learn.'A  It  is  generally  the 
carpenter  foreman  who  takes  care  to  see  that  the  excavation 
stakes  are  properly  set;  who  sees  that  the  foundation  is 
properly  laid;  who  sees  that  the  proper  openings  are  left; 
who  attends  to  the  scaffolding  for  the  painter,  the  elec- 
trician, the  lather  and  plasterer.  In  fact,  he  is  usually  the 
superintendent  of  the  job,  and  on  his  shoulders  falls  all  the 
responsibility  to  see  that  the  work  is  carried  forward 
promptly  and  properly.  He  must  be  able  to  read  blue 
prints,  detailed  plans  and  specifications,  not  only  for  his  own 
work  but  for  every  building  trade  that  comes  on  the  job. 
To  do  this  and  do  it  properly  it  is  necessary  that  he  have  a 
wide  learning  and  a  general  knowledge  of  the  diversified 
crafts  with  which  he  comes  in  contact."  ^Urging  that  action 
be  taken  to  extend  the  jurisdiction  otthe  union  so  as  to 
maintain  control  over  all  the  work  that  formerly  belonged  to 
the  carpenter,  he  said :  "  Something  must  be  done  or  it  is 
only  a  question  of  a  decade  or  two  until  the  carpenter  craft 
will  be  such  in  name  only,  and  our  membership  will  gradu- 
ally disseminate  and  affiliate  itself  with  some  special  branch, 
which  is  simply  the  child  or  ioffspring,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
carpenter  industry."''® 

In  view  of  these  statements  it  will  not  be  a  surprise  to 
find  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  working  out  its  juris- 
diction claims  in  great  detail,  and  in  one  form  or  another 
making  use  of  all  of  the  above-mentioned  tests  to  demon- 

50  Proceedings,  1910,  pp.  dT,  68. 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  59 

Strata  that  certain  work  belongs  to  its  trade.  The  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  union  in  a  general  way  covers  "all  journeymen 
carpenters  and  joiners,  stair  builders,  ship-joiners,  mill- 
wrights, planing  mill  bench  hands,  cabinet  makers,  car- 
builders  or  operators  of  wood  working  machines  .  .  . 
whether  employed  on  the  building  or  in  the  preparation  and 
manufacture  of  the  material  for  the  same."*^^  Here  the  ma- 
terial is  the  determining  factor,  and  all  skilled  workers  upon 
wood  other  than  wood  carvers  seem  to  be  regarded  as  work- 
ing at  some  form  of  the  carpenter's  trade.  It  is  argued  that 
all  wood  working  in  mills  belongs  to  the  Carpenters  be- 
cause the  machinery  used  in  this  work  represents  simply  an 
improvement  over  the  tools  which  the  carpenter  was 
formerly  accustomed  to  use,  and  because  the  material  is 
carpenter's  material.®^  The  declaration  is  frequently  made 
that  "  every  man  employed  in  the  wood  working  industry — 
"  handling  edged  tools — ought  to  belong  to  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  Joiners."^^  Furthermore, 
as  has  been  noted  in  the  remarks  of  President  Huber  which 
have  been  quoted,  the  argument  has  been  frequently  used 
that  the  Carpenters  ought  to  have  jurisdiction  over  this  or 
that  work  because  the  trade  of  the  carpenter  is  the  most 
comprehensive  and  fundamental  of  building  trades.  Here 
the  appeal  is  made  to  custom  as  a  determinant  of  the  bounds 
of  the  trade. 

In  the  claims  of  the  Carpenters  to  control  the  erection  of 
metal  cornices  and  metal  sash,  doors,  and  trim  the  material 
is  ignored  as  a  guide  to  jurisdiction,  and  the  demand  is 
made  upon  the  double  ground  of  the  skill  required  and  the 
fact  of  replacement  or  substitution.  It  is  claimed  that  the 
skill  required  to  put  up  metal  cornices  and  metal  trim  is  the 
same  in  character  as  that  required  when  wood  is  used,  and 
that  this  metal  work  is  simply  replacing  carpenter  work.  It 
is  also  argued  that  the  tools  of  carpenters  and  not  those  of 

51  Constitution,  1907,  sec.  72- 

52  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  38. 

53  Proceedings,  p.  45- 


6o        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

sheet  metal  workers  are  used  in  placing  this  material.  It  is 
cut  with  an  ordinary  wood  saw,  is  nailed  or  attached  with 
screws  in  the  same  manner  as  wood,  and  does  not  at  any- 
time require  the  use  of  the  metal  workers*  "snips"  or 
"soldering  irons."  In  an  agreement  with  the  Bridge  and 
Structural  Iron  Workers'  Union  the  Carpenters  conceded 
the  validity  of  another  of  the  tests — that  of  close  asso- 
ciation or  convenience  of  grouping.  They  agreed  that  the 
Structural  Iron  Workers  should  have  jurisdiction  over  all 
false  work  in  connection  with  the  construction  of  iron  and 
steel  bridges,  sincp  the  erection  of  the  false  work  is  merely 
preliminary  to  and  necessarily  associated  with  iron  and  steel 
work.^* 

The  Marble  Workers  claim^^  the  cutting  and  setting  of 
marble  for  interior  finish  and  decoration,  and  also  the  cutting 
and  setting  of  slate,  glass,  and  composition  used  in  place  of 
marble.^^  In  a  dispute  with  the  Tile  Layers  over  the  ques- 
tion of  setting  "  marbleithic "  tile  the  Marble  Workers 
claimed  the  work  because  the  material  was  a  composition 
made  largely  from  marble  dust.  The  United  Association  of 
Plumbers  asserts  its  exclusive  right  not  only  to  fit  the  pipes 
used  in  plumbing,  but  also  to  control  the  whole  pipe-fitting 
industry,  because  the  various  tasks  are  so  closely  connected 
with  one  another.^^  The  Cement  Workers  claim  all  work 
in   cement.^^     The   Lathers   assert  their  jurisdiction   over 

5*  The  Carpenter,  July,  1909,  p.  28.  The  Carpenters'  claims  to 
jurisdiction  have  brought  them  into  conflict  with  the  Hod  Carriers 
and  Building  Laborers,  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  Wood,  Wire  and 
Metal  Lathers,  Structural  Iron  Workers,  Electrical  Workers,  Ele- 
vator Constructors,  Painters,  Tile  Layers,  Machinists,  Asbestos 
Workers,  Car  Workers,  and  Carriage  and  Wagon  Workers. 

55  The  Marble  Worker,  September,  1910,  p.  234. 

56  Ibid.,  July,  1912,  p.  158. 

57  Jurisdiction  Claims,  191 1,  p.  14.  The  union  claims  jurisdiction 
over  plumbing,  gas  fitting,  steam  fitting,  power  pipe  fitting,  fire 
protection  apparatus,  vacuum  cleaning  systems,  speaking  tubes,  etc. 
(Constitution,  1902,  art.  xxv). 

58  The  Cement  Workers*  full  claim  is  as  follows :  "  All  artificial 
stone,  concrete  wall  or  foundation  work,  coping  and  steps,  concrete 


TRADE  JURISDICTION  6 1 

wood,  wire,  and  metal  lath,  plaster  board,  or  other  material 
replacing  these.^®  The  Sheet  Metal  Workers  describe  their 
trade  as  including  the  manufacture  and  erection  of  all  sheet 
metal  and  the  glazing  of  metal  sash  for  skylights.  The 
latter  is  claimed  on  the  ground  that  the  work  can  be  most 
conveniently  contracted  for  and  done  in  connection  with  the 
metal  work.®^  Throughout  the  building  trades  these  same 
determinants  are  found  again  and  again  marking  the  bounds 
of  the  various  crafts. 

floors  and  sidewalks,  cementing  on  concrete,  cement  mold  work, 
curbs  and  gutters,  cemetery  improvements  composed  of  concrete, 
fire-proof  floors,  sidewalk  lights  set  in  cement,  and  all  other  concrete 
construction"  (Secretary's  Report  to  Bricklayers,  1904,  p.  479). 

5^  Constitution,  1909,  art.  i,  sec.  3. 

^^  Constitution,  1909,  art.  vi,  sec.  2. 


CHAPTER   III 
Dual  Unionism 

Having  considered  the  jurisdictional  claims  of  the  build- 
ing-trades unions  in  respect  to  territory  and  to  trade,  we 
shall  turn,  in  this  and  the  following  chapter,  to  an  examina- 
tion of  the  disputes  which  arise  as  the  result  of  conflict  in 
these  claims.  These  controversies  are  of  two  classes :  dual- 
union  disputes  and  demarcation  disputes.  The  funda- 
mental distinction  between  a  dual-union  dispute  and  a  de- 
marcation dispute  is  that  in  the  former  a  settlement  of  the 
dispute,  at  least  according  to  the  claims  of  one  of  the  dis- 
putants, would  involve  the  dissolution  of  one  of  the  unions 
involved,  while  in  a  demarcation  dispute  both  unions  have 
claims  to  jurisdiction  which  are  not  involved  in  the  contro- 
versy. In  other  words,  in  a  dual-union  dispute  the  juris- 
diction claimed  by  one  of  the  disputants  is  either  exactly 
coextensive  with  that  claimed  by  the  other  or  is  entirely  in- 
cluded within  it.  In  a  dual-union  dispute  the  question  is 
not  as  to  whose  trade  the  work  belongs  to,  but  merely  as  to 
what  unions  shall  have  control  over  the  workers  in  a  par- 
ticular trade.  Thus  the  two  rival  national  unions  of  elec- 
trical workers  are  dual  organizations  since  they  claim 
jurisdiction  over  exactly  the  same  trade  and  territory.  The 
Plumbers  and  the  Steam  Fitters,  the  Bricklayers  and  the 
Operative  Plasterers  are  dual  unions  with  respect  to  each 
other  because  in  each  case  one  of  the  unions  claims,  in 
addition  to  other  jurisdiction,  all  that  is  included  by  the 
other  in  its  jurisdiction  claim.  These  conflicts  occur,  not 
because  there  is  any  dispute  as  to  the  lines  of  division 
between  the  separate  trades  involved,  but  because  each 
union  denies  to  its  rival  association  jurisdiction  over  a 
particular  trade  in  its  entirety  within  the  territory  embraced 
by  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

A  second  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  disputes 

62 


DUAL  UNIONISM  63 

but  one  much  less  clear-cut  is  that  demarcation  disputes 
occur  because  of  conflicts  in  the  various  claims  as  to  trade 
jurisdiction  only,  while  dual-union  disputes  develop  from 
rivalry  in  regard  to  trade  or  territory.  The  possibility  of 
making  this  distinction,  however,  is  entirely  due  to  the  fact 
that  in  every  trade  of  any  importance  a  national  union  exists 
which  claims  jurisdiction  over  the  American  continent.  If 
the  central  unions  in  the  United  States  claimed  jurisdiction 
only  over  districts,  demarcation  disputes  might  very  well 
arise  between  the  different  districts  as  to  whether  certain 
places  were  in  the  jurisdiction  of  one  or  the  other  of  two 
unions. 

The  fact  that  the  life  of  one  of  the  disputants  is  at  stake 
gives  to  dual-union  disputes  a  ferocity  which  warrants  their 
separate  classification.  There  is  among  trade  unionists  a 
definite  impression  that  dual-union  disputes  form  a  distinct 
category,  although  the  line  of  distinction  between  dual-union 
disputes  and  demarcation  disputes  is  not  drawn  with  clear- 
ness in  the  literature  of  the  unions.  The  general  public  is 
accustomed  to  think  inaccurately  that  jurisdictional  disputes 
include  only  demarcation  conflicts,  but  dual-union  contro- 
versies are  responsible  for  as  many  contests  and  evil  results 
as  are  the  former.^ 

While  the  concern  here  is  only  with  the  building  trades, 
it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  dual  unionism  is  not  peculiar 
to  a  few  occupations,  though  it  is  more  frequently  present 
in  some  than  in  others,  but  that  it  crops  out  in  the  history 
of  practically  all  organizations  at  one  time  or  another.  The 
query  as  to  when  and  under  what  conditions  dual  unions 
are  most  likely  to  arise  will  be  answered  subsequently  in 
greater  detail.  As  a  preliminary  it  will  suffice  to  state  that 
dual  unions  develop  most  readily  in  time  of  strike,  largely 

1  The  journal  of  the  Amalgamated  Wood- Workers,  in  speaking 
of  the  quarrel  of  that  union  with  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Car- 
penters, said  that  frequent  attacks  and  reprisals  were  made  by  one 
organization  upon  the  other,  not  so  much  on  account  of  trade  dis- 
putes as  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  jurisdiction  over  all  the  men 
in  the  wood- working  industry  (July,  1906,  p.  211). 


64        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN  BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

on  account  of  the  efforts  of  employers  to  divide  the  union 
into  opposing  factions;  they  appear  also  in  times  of  in- 
dustrial activity  when  labor  organizations  are  expanding 
and  multiplying.  Furthermore,  they  are  seen  with  greatest 
frequency  among  the  building  trades,  since  of  all  industrial 
products  it  is  probable  that  a  building  is  the  one  upon  which 
the  division  of  labor  is  carried  to  the  greatest  extent.  When 
so  large  a  number  of  tasks  on  a  single  piece  of  work  are 
portioned  out  to  different  associations,  many  of  them  work- 
ing simultaneously,  the  opportunity  for  new  combinations  is 
always  present,  and  the  results  are  often  disastrous  to 
industrial  harmony. 

It  is  consequently  not  surprising  to  find  much  of  the  atten- 
tion of  organized  labor  directed  toward  preventing  or 
eliminating  dual  unionism.  The  Structural  Building 
Trades  Alliance  was  organized  in  1903  with  the  avowed 
purpose  of  opposing  "  the  formation  of  dual  and  rival 
bodies;  to  demand  their  complete  annihilation  and  to  assist 
only  such  unions  as  are  affiliated  with  their  respective 
national  or  international  unions."^  The  Wood,  Wire  and 
Metal  Lathers,  who  during  their  early  history  were  troubled 
greatly  by  secessionists  and  independent  local  unions,  de- 
clared in  their  constitution  for  1901  that  "no  local  union 
holding  a  charter  in  the  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers 
Union  shall  be  attached  to  any  other  union  doing  work 
claimed  by  our  union;  and  all  charters  now  in  existence 
shall  be  revoked  by  the  Executive  Council  after  thirty  days 
from  date  unless  such  local  unions  shall  sever  all  con- 
nections with  rival  organizations."^  The  Bricklayers  at 
their  convention  in  1903  adopted  a  resolution  calling  upon 
all  subordinate  unions  to  do  everything  in  their  power  to 
force  the  dual  organizations  of  stonemasons  into  line.*  The 
president  of  the  Stone  Cutters  reported  to  the  St.  Louis 
Convention  in  1904  as  follows :  "  There  exist  in  three  of  our 

2  The  Lather,  January,  1904,  p.  7. 

3  Constitution,  1901,  art.  xvii,  sec.  i. 
*  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  54. 


DUAL   UNIONISM  6$ 

prominent  cities  to-day  dual  unions,  namely  Chicago,  Pitts- 
burgh and  Philadelphia.  The  very  existence  of  these  unions 
is  not  only  an  injury  to  the  trade  in  their  immediate  vicini- 
ties, and  a  source  of  annoyance  to  other  union  crafts  and 
their  employers  in  the  other  building  trades,  but  a  detri- 
ment in  general  to  the  prosperity  of  the  general  union."^ 

Similarly  the  president  of  the  Plumbers,  in  speaking  of 
their  trouble  with  the  Steam  Fitters,  said :  "  Much  valuable 
time  of  this  convention  might  be  occupied  in  a  recital  of  the 
many  injustices  perpetrated  by  this  International  Association 
of  Steam  Fitters  under  the  guise  of  unionism.  Our  places 
have  been  taken  in  times  of  strife,  employers  have  been 
dealt  with  to  the  end  that  dual  organizations  might  be 
created,  and  our  ranks  decimated."^  The  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters  sought  early  to  prevent  the  growth  of 
dual  unions  by  providing  as  follows :  "  No  member  of  this 
United  Brotherhood  can  remain  in  or  become  a  member  of 
more  than  one  local  union,  or  of  any  other  organization  of 
carpenters  and  joiners,  under  penalty  of  expulsion."^  An 
indication  of  the  feeling  of  labor  organizations  in  regard  to 
their  jurisdiction  and  of  their  opposition  to  any  organization 
which  may  prove  to  be  a  dual  association  is  found  in  the 
jealous  watchfulness  with  which  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  followed  the  formation  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department,  and  in  the  care  which  its  officers  took  to 
emphasize  the  subordination  of  the  Department  to  the 
Federation.^ 

A  dual  union  may  be  defined  as  an  organization  which 
claims  the  right  to  maintain  itself  as  a  body  independent  of, 
and  usually  rival  to,  another  association  controlling  the  same 
classes  of  workmen  and  operating  within  the  same  territory. 
The  term  "dual"  as  applied  by  one  labor  organization  to 

^  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  Supplement,  October,  1904,  p.  4. 

6  Report  of  President,  in  Proceedings,  1908. 

7  Constitution,  1888,  art.  vi,  sec.  7. 

8  Report  of  Conference  of  Building  Trades  Department,  1908, 
passim. 

5 


66        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

another  connotes  always  something  of  illegitimacy  or  in- 
fringement, and  it  is  generally  used  to  designate  the  associa- 
tion which  lacks  the  support  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  and  the  Building  Trades  Department  as  the  recog- 
nized heads  of  the  American  labor  movement. 

Dual  local  unions  occur  almost  entirely  in  large  towns  or 
cities,  primarily  on  account  of  the  patent  difficulty  that  there 
are  not  enough  workmen  in  a  small  town  to  support  several 
local  unions  of  the  same  trade.  But  there  is  also  another 
reason.  Since  the  members  of  a  dual  association  ordinarily 
cannot  travel  about  very  much  to  seek  work,  for  the  reason 
that  their  cards  will  not  be  accepted  by  the  regular  unions 
and  they  will  not  be  allowed  to  work,  they  cannot  long  main- 
tain unions  except  in  places  sufficiently  large  to  keep  them 
steadily  employed.  By  far  the  largest  number  of  dual  or 
independent  local  unions  in  the  building  trades  have  been  in 
such  cities  as  New  York,  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  and 
Boston.^ 

Dual  unions,  as  may  be  deduced  from  what  has  been  said 
above,  may  be  classified  with  respect  to  the  extent  of  their 
dual  character — that  is,  as  to  how  far  each  union  claims 
jurisdiction  over  the  same  territory  or  trade  as  is  claimed  by 
another  organization — as  (i)  coextensive  or  completely 
dual  unions,  and  (2)  incompletely  dual  unions.  The  word 
coextensive  as  used  in  this  sense  does  not  necessarily  mean 
actually  but  rather  potentially  coextensive,  that  is,  clajming — ^ 
the  saifl^,.  jurisdiction,  although,,  not  necessarily  exercising:it. 

Two  unions  are  completely  dual  with  regard  to  each  other 
when  both  of  them  assert  the  right  to  control  identical 
territory  and  work.  Of  such  a  nature,  as  has  been  said,  are 
the  two  national  associations  of  electrical  workers — the  Reid 
and  the  McNulty  unions.     The  American  section  of  the 

^  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  dual  unions  arise  and  flourish  more 
readily  in  Great  Britain  than  they  do  here,  despite  our  greater  diver- 
sity in  population.  In  1907  there  were  in  Great  Britain  five  unions 
of  bricklayers  and  eight  unions  of  masons  (The  Bricklayer  and 
Mason,  August,  1909,  p.  175). 


DUAL  UNIONISM  6/ 

Amalgamated  Society  of  Carpenters  is  a  completely  dual 
union  with  respect  to  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Car- 
penters. Likewise  the  International  Association  of  Ma- 
chinists and  the  Brotherhood  of  Machinists  are  essentially 
of  this  class,  though  the  latter  claims  to  be  an  industrial 
union. 

Dual  local  unions  are  sometimes  called  independent 
unions,  but  this  title  is  not  strictly  accurate,  for  the  term 
"  independent  union "  is  applied  properly  to  unions  main- 
taining a  separate  existence  but  not  conflicting  in  their  juris- 
diction. The  various  local  unions  existing  during  the  early 
history  of  labor  organization  in  this  country,  before  the 
formation  of  the  central  or  national  unions,  were  inde- 
pendent. Such  unions  had  the  same  trade  jurisdiction,  but 
their  territorial  jurisdictions  were  clearly  defined  and  did 
not  conflict.  With  the  development  of  the  idea  of  exclusive 
control  by  the  national  union  over  territory,  the  possibility 
of  such  organizations  practically  disappeared.  The  only 
independent  local  unions  now  are  those  representing  crafts 
which  have  no  national  unions. 

As  early  as  1874  the  Bricklayers'  National  Union  was 
confronted  with  a  complete  dual  organization,  called  the 
Order  of  United  American  Bricklayers,  which  was  formed 
by  secession  from  the  National  Union  and  had  for  its  secre- 
tary a  former  secretary  of  the  National  Union.  At  the 
convention  of  1874  it  was  decided  to  exchange  cards  with 
this  dual  body,  which  had  its  chief  strength  in  and  around 
New  York  City.^^  Twenty  years  later  we  find  an  entirely 
different  attitude  toward  dual  unions.  A  branch  of  this 
Order  of  United  American  Bricklayers  had  been  established 
in  Chicago,  and  for  a  number  of  years  the  members  of  this 
dual  union  had  refused  to  permit  the  members  of  the 
National  Union  to  work  except  upon  the  payment  of  a  large 
initiation  fee.^^    At  the  convention  of  the  National  Union 

10  Proceedings,  1874,  p.  30. 

11  During  the  rush  of  work  preceding  the  World's  Fair,  this^ 
Chicago  union  accumulated  a  fund  of  over  $90,000,  chiefly  from 
exorbitant  initiation  fees,  all  of  which,  it  was  claimed,  was  em- 
bezzled or  dissipated  in  a  year  or  two  (Proceedings,  1895,  p.  14). 


68        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

in  1895  it  was  decided  to  establish  a  regular  local  union  in 
Chicago  and  to  drive  out  the  dual  union.  The  latter  offered 
to  compromise  by  admitting  members  of  the  National 
Union  on  travelling  cards  and  the  payment  of  a  ten-dollar 
initiation  fee,  in  return  for  which  it  desired  to  have  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  over  Chicago  and  the  right  to  work  in 
any  other  territory  upon  payment  of  a  similar  initiation 
fee.  This  compromise  was  refused,  and  a  branch  of  the 
national  union  was  established  there  during  the  following 
year. 

An  example  of  the  coextensive  or  completely  dual  union 
is  found  among  the  sheet  metal  workers.  In  1902  an 
organization  was  formed  in  Pittsburgh,  called  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers'  National  Alliance,  which  was  made  up  of 
local  unions  in  Pittsburgh,  Philadelphia,  New  York, 
Brooklyn,  and  Chicago.  Previous  to  this  time  the  New 
York  local  union  had  always  maintained  an  independent 
existence,  but  the  other  local  unions  were  seceders  from  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers'  International  Association.  This 
dual  national  association  was  absorbed  by  the  International 
Association  during  the  following  year.^^  Another  such  dual 
organization  of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  was  the  United 
Metal  Workers'  International  Union,  whose  charter  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  finally  revoked.^^ 

The  Knights  of  Labor  was  in  a  sense  a  completely  dual 
organization  to  all  trade  unions,  for  it  sought  to  unite  all 
workers  in  one  great  union.  It  consequently  aroused  the 
opposition  of  the  unions,  and  a  meeting  was  held  in  Phila- 
delphia in  1886  to  draw  up  a  protest  against  it  and  to 
formulate  plans  for  opposing  its  activity.  Twenty-two 
trade  unions  were  represented  and  fourteen  others  endorsed 
their  position.  The  secretary  of  the  Bricklayers  submitted 
a  number  of  questions  to  the  local  unions  of  his  organiza- 
tion as  to  the  activities  of  the  Knights.  The  answers  showed 
that  the  Knights  of  Labor  was  a  dual  organization  in  that 

12  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  April,  1903,  p.  94. 
.13  Ibid.,  July,  1903,  p.  163. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  69 

it  aimed  to  secure  jurisdiction  over  bricklayers  regardless 
of  whether  they  were  members  of  the  union  or  not,  and  in 
every  community  regardless  of  whether  there  was  a  local 
union  there  or  not.  According  to  these  replies,  this  dual 
association  was  a  harbor  for  suspended,  fined,  or  recreant 
members  of  the  Bricklayers.^* 

Similarly,  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  is  a  dual 
union  with  respect  to  all  craft  unions.  The  Brotherhood 
of  Carpenters  recognizes  this,  for  in  reply  to  the  question, 
asked  by  members  of  a  carpenters'  local  union  in  Oklahoma, 
as  to  whether  their  members  could  also  join  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,  the  executive  board  decided  ad- 
versely on  the  ground  that  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World  is  a  dual  organization  with  respect  to  the  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters.^^ 

With  the  growth  of  power  and  the  increase  in  the  size  of 
national  unions,  dual  associations  of  the  kind  we  have  been 
describing — that  is,  coextensive  in  jurisdiction  claims — tend 
to  disappear.  At  present,  when  consolidation  and  central- 
ization have  gone  far  in  the  organization  of  labor,  dual 
unions  ar€  mainly  of  the  class  we  have  described  as  incom- 
pletely dual.  „  B;^_an  jncompletely  dual  union  we  nie_an  one 
which  claims  jurisdictiorT over"  only  a  part  of  the  territory 
or  a  part  of  the  trade  which  another  union  claims  to  control, 
the  latter  organization  being  conceded  some  of  its  jurisdic- 
tion claims.  Thus  the  United  Association  of  Plumbers  and 
the  International  Association  of  Steam  Fitters  are  dual 
unions  in  so  far  as  the  Plumbers  charter  local  unions  of 
steam  fitters  or  admit  steam  fitters  into  membership  in  local 
unions  of  plumbers.     There  is  practically  no  controversy 

1*  Proceedings,  1887,  p.  70.  The  Carpenters  were  also  opposed  to 
their  members  joining  the  Knights  of  Labor,  and  in  1888  the  secre- 
tary of  the  union  pointed  out  many  evils  resulting  from  the  forma- 
tion of  dual  carpenters'  organizations  by  the  Knights  of  Labor.  He 
complained  that  these  carpenters  "offered  to  work  longer  hours  for 
smaller  wages,  when  our  members  were  struggling  to  maintain  union 
rules"  (Proceedings,  1888,  pp.  18-19). 

15  Proceedings,  1906,  p.  221. 


70        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 

between  these  two  unions  as  to  the  exact  demarcation  be- 
tween the  trades  of  plumbing  and  steam  fitting.  In  fact,  at 
the  hearing  before  the  executive  committee  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  in  1899  both  unions  agreed  that  plumb- 
ing and  steam  fitting  are  separate  trades,  and  there  was 
a  fairly  general  agreement  as  to  what  work  was  embraced 
in.  each  trade.  The  difficulty  is  that  the  Plumbers  claim 
jurisdiction  over  the  two  trades  of  plumbing  and  steam 
fitting.  They  have  local  unions  of  steam  fitters  under  their 
jurisdiction,  and  the  Steam  Fitters  insist  that  all  such 
branches  ought  to  affiliate  with  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Plumbers  claim  that,  since  the  interests  of  the  whole 
pipe-fitting  industry  are  identical,  the  Steam  Fitters  should 
amalgamate  with  them.  Efiforts  have  been  made  to  bring 
about  more  peaceful  relations  between  these  dual  bodies 
through  the  acceptance  of  a  working  agreement;  but  the 
Steam  Fitters  will  not  agree  to  a  permanent  settlement 
which  does  not  recognize  them  as  having  sole  control  over 
all  steam  fitters,  while  the  Plumbers  will  accept  no  plan  of 
settlement  which  is  not  based  upon  the  absorption  of  the 
steam  fitters  by  their  union. 

Many  jurisdictional  conflicts  have  occurred  between  the 
Bricklayers  and  the  Operative  Plasterers  because  of  dual 
unionism.  In  the  reports  of  the  president  and  the  secretary 
of  the  Bricklayers  for  1902,  1903,  1904,  and  1905  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  frequent  dis- 
putes between  these  two  unions,  which  are  partially  dual  to 
each  other.  Plastering  has  always  been  closely  associated 
with  bricklaying  and  stonemasonry,  and  it  is  customary  in  a 
small  community  to  find  the  same  men  doing  the  three  kinds 
of  work.  Hence,  the  Bricklayers  from  the  beginning  have 
admitted  plasterers  to  membership  in  their  subordinate 
unions  in  the  smaller  cities  and  have  maintained  that  this 
was  the  only  satisfactory  way  to  organize  this  class  of 
workmen,  since  in  these  places  the  number  of  those  who 
devoted  themselves  exclusively  to  plastering  was  too  small 


DUAL  UNIONISM  /I 

to  support  a  separate  organization.^®  Frequent  conflicts  oc- 
curred on  account  of  this  policy,  and  many  futile  attempts 
were  made  to  draw  up  an  agreement. 

Friction  has  usually  arisen  because  the  employers,  located 
in  cities  like  New  York,  Chicago,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia, 
where  there  are  branches  of  the  Operative  Plasterers,  have 
taken  contracts  in  territory  where  the  local  plasterers  were 
members  of  a  branch  of  the  Bricklayers,  and  have  carried 
into  this  jurisdiction  members  of  the  Operative  Plasterers. 
The  result  is  that  the  bricklayers  and  masons  refuse  to  work 
on  the  building  unless  the  plasterers  affiliated  with  them  are 
employed,  and  thus  the  job  is  tied  up.  A  strike  of  this  sort, 
involving  carpenters,  hod  carriers,  and  bricklayers,  lasted 
for  several  months  in  Hartford,  Connecticut,  and  cost  the 
various  unions,  as  well  as  the  employers,  large  sums  of 
money.  In  his  report  for  1902  the  secretary  of  the  Brick- 
layers said  that  during  the  previous  year  the  union  had  had 
a  great  deal  of  trouble  because  the  members  of  the  Opera- 
tive Plasterers'  Union  came  into  the  jurisdiction  of  their 
own  plasterers  and  refused  to  affiliate.  At  Tarrytown,  as 
the  result  of  a  difficulty  of  this  kind,  a  firm  which  did  a 
great  deal  of  work  was  put  on  the  "unfair"  list,  and  thus 
the  unions  of  New  York  and  vicinity  suffered  a  serious  loss 
of  work.^^  It  was  also  said  that  a  strike  in  which  a  New 
Jersey  local  union  was  engaged  for  more  than  a  year  had 
been  greatly  prolonged  because  members  of  the  Operative 
Plasterers'  Union  took  the  places  of  the  strikers. ^^  An 
agreement  was  drawn  up  between  these  dual  organizations 
in  February,  191 1,  which  it  was  hoped  would  put  an  end 
to  these  difficulties.^® 

1^  Secretary  Dobson  of  the  Bricklayers  said  in  1905  that  his  union 
has  never  chartered  an  exclusive  plasterers'  local  union,  and  that  it 
takes  plasterers  into  its  other  unions  only  when  they  are  so  few  in 
number  that  they  could  not  maintain  a  local  union  (Report  of  the 
Secretary,  December,  1905,  p.  347). 

1^  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1902,  p.  320. 

IS  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1903,  p.  435. 

19  This  agreement  was  brought  about  largely  through  the  efforts 
of  Mr.  Otto  M.  Eidlitz  of  the  Mason  Builders'  Association  of  New 


72        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

The  history  of  the  Bricklayers  also  records  much  friction 
with  another  dual  association,  the  Stone  Masons'  Inter- 
national Union.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  the  plasterers,  the 
Bricklayers'  Union  declared  that  much  better  results  could 
be  obtained  by  the  stonemasons  if  they  were  members  of  the 
Bricklayers  and  Masons'  International  Union;  and,  in  fact, 
they  always  had  more  of  such  members  than  had  the  ex- 
clusive union  of  masons.  The  Stone  Masons'  International 
Union  was  an  incompletely  dual  organization  with  respect  to 
the  Bricklayers,  as  it  claimed  jurisdiction  over  only  a  part 
of  the  workmen  included  in  the  former. 

The  dual  union  of  stonemasons,  sometimes  called  the 
Jones  Union,  was  organized  by  George  Jones  of  Pittsburgh, 
who  sought  to  persuade  the  masons  to  secede  in  a  body  from 
the  Bricklayers.  Only  four  local  unions  withdrew,  how- 
ever— those  at  Syracuse,  Pittsburgh,  St.  Louis,  and  Balti- 
more— and  they  met  in  Baltimore  in  1890  and  formed  the 
Stone  Masons'  International  Union.  The  members  of  the 
Bricklayers'  Union  were  instructed  not  to  recognize  in  any 
way  as  union  men  the  members  of  this  dual  organization. 
The  secretary  of  the  Bricklayers  said,  "There  is  not  room 
for  both  organizations,"  and  it  was  decided  to  send  deputies 

York  City;  it  provided  (i)  that  cards  shall  be  interchanged  wher- 
ever both  organizations  have  local  unions ;  (2)  that  the  support  to 
be  given  in  the  interest  of  either  organization  in  localities  where 
the  Bricklayers*  Union  controls  plastering  shall  be  determined  by 
the  executive  boards  of  both  associations;  (3)  that  the  Bricklayers' 
Union  shall  concede  to  the  Operative  Plasterers  the  sole  right  to 
establish  local  unions  composed  exclusively  of  plasterers;  (4)  that 
in  localities  where  the  Bricklayers  have  local  unions  composed  of 
the  three  trades,  the  plasterers  may  by  a  two-thirds  vote  (excluding 
the  bricklayers  and  masons  from  such  vote)  withdraw  and  form  a 
local  union  exclusively  of  plasterers;  (5)  that  the  subcontracting  of 
plastering  by  any  bona  fide  employer  shall  not  be  opposed;  .  .  .  (7) 
that  if  in  any  city  where  there  is  a  local  union  composed  of  the 
three  trades,  there  are  three  or  less  than  three  plasterers  who  are 
members  and  there  are  at  least  five  resident  plasterers  who  are  not 
members,  the  Operative  Plasterers  shall  be  conceded  the  right  to 
establish  a  local  union  (The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  February,  191 1, 
p.  30). 


DUAL  UNIONISM  73 

into  every  city  where  this  union  had  established  itself  to 
organize  rival  unions  affiliated  with  the  Bricklayers.^**  This 
was  done,  and  the  dual  union  gradually  disintegrated.^* 
While  it  existed,  however,  it  entailed  upon  employers  and 
the  "  legitimate  "  union  great  inconvenience  and  the  expendi- 
ture of  large  sums  of  money. 

No  union  of  building  workmen  has  had  more  trouble  on 
account  of  dual  unionism  than  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Build- 
ing Laborers.  This  is  due  largely  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an 
organization  made  up  of  unskilled  men.  Lacking  the 
definite  characteristics  which  the  possession  of  skill  would 
furnish,  the  building  laborers  may  be  grouped  in  a  great 
number  of  ways  according  to  the  kind  of  labor  they  per- 
form. Thus,  in  New  York  the  men  who  were  employed 
chiefly  in  excavating  were  granted  a  charter  by  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  and  became  an  incompletely  dual 
union  to  the  Hod  Carriers;  in  1907  a  resolution  was 
adopted,  calling  upon  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to 
order  this  excavators'  union  to  amalgamate  with  the  Hod 
Carriers,^^  and  two  years  later  it  was  decided  that  such 
work  came  properly  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Hod 
Carriers. ^^  The  jurisdiction  of  this  union  was  also  attacked 
by  another  dual  union,  called  the  International  Laborers' 
Union,  which  sought  to  control  only  other  unskilled  laborers 
and  made  no  claim  to  authority  over  the  hod  carriers. 
There  were  many  bitter  disputes  between  the  two  organiza- 
tions for  several  years,  and  Critchlow,  the  secretary  of  the 
International  Laborers'  Union,  sought  to  obtain  a  charter 

20  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1902,  p.  316. 

21  The  Bricklayers  claim  that  the  stonemasons  cannot  organize 
advantageously  as  a  separate  union  since  m  most  places  it  is  neces- 
sary for  a  bricklayer  or  a  stonemason  to  do  both  kinds  of  work. 
They  also  claim  that  on  account  of  the  facility  of  transferring  and 
obtaining  work  in  different  places,  even  those  who  do  mason  work 
exclusively  prefer  to  belong  to  the  Bricklayers  (Arbitration  Pro- 
ceedings, Pittsburgh,  1903). 

22  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  No- 
vember, 1907,  p.  33. 

23  Ibid.,  October,  1909,  p.  199.  g 


74        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  but  failed,  and 
this  dual  association  also  went  out  of  existence.^* 

Another  dual  union  which  flourished  among  the  laborers 
for  several  years  and  claimed  jurisdiction  over  only  a  part 
of  the  work  controlled  by  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Building 
Laborers'  Union  was  the  International  Building  Laborers' 
Protective  Union.  This  association  survived  longest  in  New 
England,  where  its  local  unions  were  composed  mainly  of 
Italians,  and  its  officers  were  said  to  have  appealed  to  race 
feeling  to  prevent  the  workmen  from  going  over  to  the 
legitimate  organization.^^  Still  another  conflict  which  has 
caused  much  trouble  is  that  between  the  Cement  Workers' 
Union  and  the  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers'  Union. 
That  this  is  regarded  as  a  case  of  partial  or  limited  dual 
unionism  rather  than  as  a  demarcation  dispute  is  shown  by 
the  comment  of  the  executive  council  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department  in  making  its  decision  on  the  dispute  between 
these  two  unions.  It  was  said  by  it  that  charters  had  been 
granted  to  two  organizations,  one  of  which  claimed  all 
cement  work,  while  the  other  claimed  about  seventy  per 
cent  of  it, — a  fact  which,  as  the  executive  council  said, 
"  would  seem  to  indicate  that  a  dual  form  of  organization 
exists  within  this  Department  on  the  work  in  question."^® 

The  secretary  of  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters 
said  in  1904  that  efforts  had  been  made  during  the  preced- 
ing two  years  to  organize  as  separate  unions  the  locomotive 
woodworkers,  the  agricultural  woodworkers,  the  railway 
bridge  builders,  the  millwrights,  the  shinglers,  the  dock, 
wharf,  and  bridge  builders,  the  metal  ceiling  and  wood 
workers,  and  the  carpenters'  helpers,  but  the  protests  of  the 
Brotherhood  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  had 
prevented  their  being  chartered.^^ 

Even  the  National  Building  Trades  Council,  despite  its 

24  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  May, 
1906,  p.  2  flf. 

25  Ibid.,  July,  1907,  p.  7, 

26  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  p.  27. 

27  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  68. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  75 

•differences  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  was 
careful  to  say  when  it  was  formed,  "  It  should  be  distinctly 
understood  that  a  local  building  trades  council  is  not  and 
rshould  never  become  dual  to  central  bodies  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  or  any  other  labor  organization."^® 
When  at  the  formation  of  the  Building  Trades  Department 
the  question  of  establishing  state  branches  of  the  Depart- 
ment was  under  discussion,  Vice-President  Duncan,  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  was  much  concerned  lest 
the  field  of  authority  of  that  body  as  represented  by  its 
state  federations  be  infringed  upon.  He  opposed  the  crea- 
tion of  state  councils  by  the  Building  Trades  Department  on 
the  ground  that  it  "  would  tend  to  divide  authority  and 
would  create  a  dual  power  in  those  matters  that  state  federa- 
tions should  exercise."^® 

The  foregoing  illustrations  of  dual  unions  have  all  been 
of  associations  of  national  or  nominally  national  extent,  but 
dual  unions  may  also  be  local  in  jurisdiction.  In  this  class 
are  the  great  numbers  of  seceded  or  suspended  branches  of 
the  various  national  unions,  the  type  usually  thought  of 
when  dual  unions  are  referred  to,  which  claim  jurisdiction 
over  the  identical  trades  controlled  by  the  corresponding 
national  unions  but  confine  themselves  to  a  single  locality. 
It  is  probable  that  the  history  of  every  national  labor  union 
would  furnish  examples  of  this  type,  and  we  shall  later 
examine  some  of  them  more  closely,  but  we  may  properly 
at  this  point  justify  this  distinction  of  a  subclass  within 
the  class  of  incompletely  dual  unions  by  reference  to  a  few 
cases. 

The  organ  of  the  Marble  Workers  announced  in  19 lo  that 
the  National  Cutters  and  Setters'  Union,  the  Empire  As- 
sociation, and  the  Progressive  Association  of  Marble 
Workers,  all  of  which  were  dual  unions  whose  jurisdiction 
was  confined  to  New  York  City,  had  amalgamated  with  the 

28  Pamphlet  concerning  Building  Trades  Council,  p.  11. 

29  Report  of  Conference  of  Building  Trades  Department,  1908, 
p.  ^7- 


j6        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS- 

Marble  Workers,  and  that  there  were  now  no  dual  unions 
of  marble  workers.^"  The  president  of  the  Slate  and  Tile- 
Roofers'  Union  reported  to  the  convention  of  1904  that  there- 
was  a  dual  union  asserting  jurisdiction  only  over  Boston,, 
which  was  known  as  the  Roofers'  Protective  Union  and 
which  claimed  control  over  all  kinds  of  roofing  in  that  city. 
He  said  that  he  had  offered  to  give  it  a  charter  in  the  Slate 
and  Tile  Roofers'  Union  if  it  would  reduce  its  jurisdiction 
claims  to  include  only  slate  and  tile  roofing,  but  this  the 
dual  association  refused  to  do.^^ 

The  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers  have  had  to  contend 
at  various  times  with  dual  organizations  in  the  three- 
branches  of  the  trade  in  New  York  City.  In  1903  trouble 
arose  there  because  the  Building  Trades  Employers'  Asso- 
ciation refused  to  employ  any  wire  lathers  who  were  not 
members  of  the  New  York  Iron  Furring  and  Metallic  Lath- 
ing Union,  a  purely  local  body  which  claimed  jurisdiction 
within  a  radius  of  twenty-five  miles  of  New  York.  The 
local  union  at  Paterson,  New  Jersey,  which  was  within  this 
radius,  joined  forces  with  the  legitimate  New  York  union  in 
fighting  this  dual  association,  with  the  result  that  an  amalga- 
mation was  finally  brought  about  and  the  dual  union  dis- 
appeared. At  the  same  time  another  dual  organization  in 
the  same  city  was  disposed  of  by  an  agreement  between  the 
regular  local  union  of  wood  lathers  and  the  Independent 
Wood  Lathers'  Union  of  New  York.^^ 

A  great  deal  of  time  and  attention  has  been  expended 
during  the  past  few  years  by  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  and  the  Building  Trades  Department  in  an  effort  to 
bring  about  an  effective  national  union  among  the  hod 
carriers  and  building  laborers.  Many  dual  local  unions 
existed  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  some  of  which  had 
never  been  part  of  the  national  union,  while  others  had 
seceded  from  it.     The  Federation  used  its  influence  to  force 

30  The  Marble  Worker,  October,  1910,  p.  253. 

31  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  10. 

32  The  Lather,  February,  1904,  pp.  12,  13. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  77 

all  of  these  local  unions  to  affiliate  with  the  Hod  Carriers, 
and  considerable  progress  has  been  made  toward  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  purpose.  It  was  announced  in  1906  that 
the  recognized  union  had  chartered  eight  of  the  twenty- 
two  dual  associations  which  had  existed  in  New  York 
City.33 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  many  of  the  Hod  Carriers'  dual- 
union  troubles  have  occurred  on  account  of  the  chartering 
of  local  unions  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  In 
unorganized  communities  and  in  districts  where  there  are 
not  sufficient  men  of  each  craft  to  form  local  branches  of 
their  corresponding  national  unions  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  organizes  mixed  local  unions,  known  as 
federal  labor  unions,  which  are  made  up  of  workmen  en- 
gaged at  various  trades.  Many  of  these  organizations 
have  had  hod  carriers  and  building  laborers  enrolled  as 
members,  and  are  reluctant  to  give  them  up  to  the  local 
unions  of  their  own  craft  when  these  are  established.  The 
secretary  of  the  Hod  Carriers  reported  in  1904  that  during 
the  year  there  had  been  frequent  controversies  with  federal 
labor  unions  chartered  by  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  because  these  unions  refused  to  concede  jurisdiction 
over  building  laborers  to  the  national  union.  On  one  occa- 
sion, the  secretary  said,  he  had  been  accused  by  an  organizer 
of  the  Federation  of  Labor  of  being  the  founder  of  a 
"  scab  "  union  when  he  established  a  branch  of  the  national 
union,  and  on  many  occasions  the  members  of  these  dual 
bodies  worked  for  lower  wages  than  the  members  of  the 
legitimate  unions  were  demanding.^* 

The  Hod  Carriers  being  an  organization  of  unskilled 
workmen,  its  members  are  very  largely  immigrants  of 
various  nationalities.  This  has  been  one  cause  of  the 
formation  of  dual  local  unions.  In  Toledo  such  an  organi- 
.zation  was  established  by  Polish  laborers;  in  Buffalo  there 

33  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  March, 

1907,  p.  15. 

34  Ibid.,  March,  1905,  p.  56. 


78        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

were  unions  of  Polish,  Italian,  and  English-speaking  work- 
men ;  and  in  a  few  localities  the  attempt  was  made  to  estab- 
Hsh  dual  unions  made  up  of  negroes.^^ 

The  Stone  Cutters  have  likewise  had  many  conflicts  aris- 
ing from  the  formation  of  dual  unions  whose  jurisdiction 
was  limited  to  particular  localities.  A  peculiar  contest 
arose  in  May,  1902,  between  the  national  union  of  stone 
cutters  and  the  New  York  union  of  stone  cutters  which  was 
unaffiliated  with  the  national  union.  The  New  York  union 
decided  to  close  its  books  against  outsiders  and  to  refuse 
to  accept  the  cards  of  any  of  the  branches  of  the  national 
association.  Work  was  plentiful  in  the  city,  and  all  the 
local  men  were  working  overtime  and  receiving  high  wages. 
The  national  union  decided  that  unless  the  cards  of  its  mem- 
bers were  accepted  and  they  were  permitted  to  work,  its 
local  branches  throughout  the  country  would  refuse  to 
accept  New  York  cards,  and,  further,  the  national  union 
would  proceed  to  establish  a  new  local  union  in  New  York 
and  make  the  members  of  the  dual  union  pay  a  fine  of 
eighty  dollars  each  as  a  prerequisite  for  admission.^^  The 
local  branch  in  Salt  Lake  City  complained  in  1903  that  its 
members  were  thrown  out  of  employment  because  a  local 
dual  union  agreed  to  work  at  a  lower  rate  of  pay.  A 
member  of  the  executive  board  succeeded,  after  two  weeks 
effort,  in  ending  the  dispute  by  persuading  most  of  the  dual 
unionists  to  join  the  local  branch  at  a  reduced  initiation 
fee.^''  In  1905  a  settlement  of  a  long-standing  dispute  was 
also  effected  in  Philadelphia  between  .a  dual  local  union  and 
the  legitimate  branch  of  the  national  union.^^  Additional 
examples  of  dual  unions  claiming  only  part  of  the  territory 
of  recognized  national  unions  might  be  cited  from  all  the 
other  building-trades  unions.^^ 

35  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  July, 
1906,  p.  13. 

36  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  July,  1902,  pp.  5,  7. 

37  Ibid.,  July,  1903,  p.  6. 

38  Ibid.,  October,  1905,  p.  3. 

39  The  secretary  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  reported  in 


DUAL  UNIONISM  79 

Dual  unions,  classified  according  to  their  origin,  fall  into 
three  groups :  ( i )  those  associations  which  became  "  dual  " 
by  reason  of  their  failure  to  join  in  the  formation  of  the 
"legitimate"  union;  (2)  those  arising  from  suspension  or 
secession  from  an  existing  national  union;  and  (3)  those 
due  to  the  introduction  of  new  processes,  new  materials, 
new  forms  of  the  division  of  labor,  and  machinery. 

The  first  class  was  naturally  much  more  numerous  dur- 
ing the  early  history  of  labor  organization  in  this  country 
than  it  is  now,  for  with  the  tendency  toward  consolidation 
into  one  national  union  and  the  strengthening  of  that  union 
most  of  the  independent  unions  have  been  amalgamated 
into  one  association.  The  Steam  Fitters  may  properly  be 
regarded  as  falling  in  this  class,  since  the  Plumbers  and  the 
Steam  Fitters  were  organized  about  the  same  time.  The 
Operative  Plasterers  and  the  Amalgamated  Society  of  Car- 
penters may  also  defend  their  right  to  separate  existence  by 
an  appeal  to  their  age. 

A  similar  situation  existed  among  the  stone  cutters  for 
some  years  during  the  early  history  of  the  present  recog- 
nized national  union.  The  Journeymen  Stone  Cutters'  As- 
sociation of  North  America  exercised  control  over  the  trade 
mainly  in  the  Middle  West,  though  it  had  a  few  branches 
in  other  parts  of  the  country.  The  Eastern  Association  of 
Stone  Cutters  was  made  up  of  local  unions  situated  in  the 
eastern  section  of  the  country.  For  a  few  years  both  of 
these  unions  claimed  national  jurisdiction.  It  was  sug- 
gested that  to  prevent  disputes  as  to  jurisdiction  a  certain 
territory  should  be  defined  for  each.  A  further  suggestion 
was  made  that  each  refuse  to  receive  local  unions  seceding 
from  the  other.*®    The  Eastern  Association  adopted  these 

1898  that  a  number  of  local  dual  unions  had  amalgamated  with  the 
national  union  during  the  year.  Among  these  were  the  Associated 
Carpenters  of  Detroit,  the  New  Haven  branch  of  the  United  Order 
of  Carpenters,  the  Knights  of  Labor  Carpenters  of  Chicago,  three 
House  Framers'  unions  of  Brooklyn,  the  Cabinet  Makers'  Union  of 
Brooklyn,  and  the  Independent  Carpenters'  Union  of  Newark  (Pro- 
ceedings, 1898,  p.  31). 
*°  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  November,  1890,  p.  2. 


80        JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

proposals  during  the  following  year,  and  declared  that  its 
jurisdiction  extended  over  the  Eastern  and  Middle  Atlantic 
States  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  that  it  would  not 
exchange  cards  with  any  other  union  of  stone  cutters  in  this 
territory.*^  This  did  not  settle  the  matter,  for  each  as- 
sociation sought  to  establish  branches  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  other,  and  disputes  occurred  intermittently  until  the 
Eastern  Association  was  finally  absorbed  by  the  Journeymen 
Stone  Cutters'  Union.*^ 

By  far  the  largest  number  of  dual  unions  are  of  the 
second  class :  those  arising  through  secession  or  suspension 
from  a  previously  existing  organization.  They  may  thus 
be  created  by  either  a  forced  or  a  voluntary  breaking  away 
from  the  original  body.  Local  unions  may  be  and  fre- 
quently are  suspended  by  their  national  union  for  violation 
of  its  laws  or  for  failure  to  obey  an  order  issued  by  the 
national  organization.  Probably  the  majority  of  such  sus- 
pensions occur  because  of  the  failure  on  the  part  of  local 
unions  to  pay  their  indebtedness  to  their  national  associa- 
tions. The  suspended  local  union,  if  it  is  located  in  a 
small  town  and  if  the  national  union  is  a  strong  one,  usually 
disbands  or  seeks  reinstatement,  for  unless  there  is  suffi- 
cient work  in  the  community  to  keep  the  men  employed 
pretty  continuously,  they  will  have  to  seek  work  in  other 
sections,  and  this  they  will  find  almost  impossible  to  secure 
as  long  as  they  are  outside  of  the  national  union.  In  a 
larger  community,  where  there  is  work  enough  to  maintain 
the  men  at  home,  the  suspension  of  the  local  union  may 
result  in  the  formation  of  a  dual  body,  which  may  exist  for 
a  number  of  years  and  be  a  source  of  annoyance  and  expense 
to  the  national  union.  For  this  reason  the  suspension  of  a 
subordinate  union  is  rarely  resorted  to  in  a  weak  national 
association,  and  even  in  a  strong  union  only  as  a  last  resort 
or  upon  great  provocation.  Often,  indeed,  the  mere  threat 
of  suspension  is  sufficient  to  bring  about  compliance  with  the 

*i  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  January,  1891,  p.  7. 
42  Ibid.,  March,  1893,  p.  11. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  8 1 

wishes  of  the  national  body,  for  this  is  a  severe  penalty, 
especially  when,  added  to  the  losses  and  difficulties  which 
the  members  of  such  a  branch  ordinarily  suffer,  there  is  in- 
volved (as,  for  instance,  in  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters) 
the  suspension  of  all  the  members  of  such  a  union  from 
national  union  benefits.*^ 

As  early  as  1857  the  New  'York  local  union  of  stone 
cutters,  which  was  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  national 
union,  was  suspended  because  it  was  heavily  indebted  to  the 
national  union  and  refused  to  pay.  The  other  branches  of 
the  national  union  were  instructed  to  compel  every  member 
of  this  suspended  union  who  might  come  into  their  juris- 
diction to  pay  an  initiation  fee  of  one  dollar  and  his  share 
of  the  indebtedness  of  the  New  York  branch  before  being 
permitted  to  work.**  During  the  following  year  the  Chicago 
local  union  was  likewise  suspended  because  it  failed  to  pay 
its  dues  to  the  national  organization.*^ 

One  of  the  New  York  local  unions  of  the  Bricklayers  was 
suspended  in  1902  because  it  refused  to  live  up  to  an  agree- 
ment which  the  national  union  had  made  with  the  con- 
tractors for  the  Rapid  Transit  Tunnel.  After  a  few  months 
it  consented  to  comply  with  this  agreement  and  was  rein- 
stated.*^ Again,  in  1905  the  Bricklayers'  Union  threatened 
to  suspend  all  of  its  New  York  branches  unless  they  should 
comply  with  its  rules  in  regard  to  fireproof  tiling.  A  few 
of  them  did  obey  these  rules,  but  others  continued  wilfully 
to  violate  them,  and  the  executive  board  therefore  suspended 
thirteen  local  unions.*^ 

The  separation  of  a  branch  or  a  number  of  branches  from 
the  national  union  may  be  occasioned  also  by  secession. 
Two  forms  of  secession  may  be  distinguished :  one  in  which 
the  local  union  as  a  whole  withdraws  from  the  national 

*3  Constitution,  191 1,  p.  43. 

44  Stone  Cutters'  Circular,  September,  1857,  P-  4- 

45  Ibid.,  March,  1858,  p.  4. 

46  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1902,  p.  350. 

47  Annual  Report  of  the  President,  December,  1905,  p.  i  ff. 


82        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

union,  and  the  other  in  which  a  local  union  splits  into  two 
factions,  one  of  which  withdraws  from  the  national  or- 
ganization. The  causes  of  the  secession  may  be  as  numer- 
ous and  varied  as  those  which  give  rise  to  quarrels  between 
individuals.  Secretary  McHugh  of  the  Stone  Cutters  re- 
cently said :  "  Rivals  of  the  old,  well-established  organiza- 
tions of  the  country  spring  into  existence  from  a  variety  of 
causes,  chief  among  which  is  the  irrational  or  mercenary 
member,  who  would  further  his  own  interests  to  the  detri- 
ment of  the  union  cause."*^ 

Secession  is  justified  usually  on  the  ground  of  the  right  to 
local  autonomy.  It  is  claimed  that  since  the  national  unions 
are  voluntary  associations  and  are  established  through  the 
efforts  and  at  the  will  of  the  local  unions,  the  latter  have  a 
right  to  withdraw  at  any  time  they  desire.  This  is  of  course 
analogous  to  the  old  doctrine  of  state's  rights,  and  is  re- 
garded by  the  national  unions  as  dangerous  and  unsound 
teaching.  In  the  arbitration  proceedings  between  the  Brick- 
layers and  the  Stone  Masons,  the  latter  composed  of  unions 
which  had  seceded  from  the  Bricklayers,  the  representative 
of  the  Bricklayers  argued  against  the  right  of  secession  as 
follows :  '^  Shall  it  be  the  right  of  any  number  of  unreason- 
able and  dissatisfied  members  of  any  labor  organization  to 
form  a  union  and  enter  the  field  of  usefulness  of  that  asso- 
ciation and  there  establish  and  maintain  a  rival  union  with 
the  assent  and  moral  support  of  organized  labor?  It  is  one 
thing  to  maintain  that  it  is  a  man's  inalienable  right  to  do 
as  he  chooses,  .  .  .  but  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  ask  organ- 
ized labor  to  sanction  a  principle  which  appeals  most 
strongly  to  non-unionism,  which  subverts  all  power  of 
discipline  .  .  .  and  means  the  weakening  or  destruction  of 
organized  labor."*^ 

Secessions  of  local  unions  naturally  occur  with  greatest 
frequency  in  weak  and  inefficient  national  unions.  In  the 
early  history  of  many  associations  now  powerful  such  seces- 

*8  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  June,  1906,  p.  2. 
*^  Arbitration  Proceedings,  Pittsburgh,  1903. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  8$ 

sions  were  not  uncommon.  Indeed,  little  attempt  was  made 
to  force  the  return  of  the  seceders.  Even  in  well-established 
unions  secessions  en  masse  of  particular  sections  of  the 
organization  which  have  become  dissatisfied  with  the 
national  union  for  some  reason,  real  or  fancied,  sometimes 
occur.  The  Electrical  Workers  have  had  a  long  and  costly 
jurisdictional  dispute  because  one  section,  mainly  the  out- 
side electrical  workmen,  led  by  Reid,  seceded  from  the 
national  organization.  The  outside  workmen  get  less  pay 
than  do  the  inside  electricians,  and  because  this  difference 
persisted  and  seemed  very  marked,  the  outside  men  came  to 
believe  that  the  union,  dominated  by  the  inside  workmen, 
was  merely  "  using "  them  to  improve  conditions  for  the 
inside  electricians. 

The  trouble  culminated  when  this  faction,  under  the 
leadership  of  Reid,  failed  to  prevent  the  election  of  Presi- 
dent McNulty,  and  thus  failed  to  gain  control  of  the  union. 
They  then  elected  their  own  officers  and  seceded.  Each  set 
of  officers,  with  their  supporters,  insisted  that  they  repre- 
sented the  legitimate  organization  of  electrical  workers,  and 
the  conflict  received  the  attention  for  several  years  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  Building  Trades 
Department  in  their  efforts  to  bring  the  warring  sections 
together.  Great  bitterness  of  feeling  was  manifested,  and 
work  was  continually  interrupted  because  some  city  federa- 
tions recognized  one  union  while  others  recognized  its  rival. 
Court  proceedings  were  instituted  to  obtain  possession  of 
books  or  property  claimed  by  both  sides;  bank  balances 
were  tied  up,  and  efforts  at  organization  hampered.  There 
was  also  a  heavy  loss  of  wages  on  account  of  interruptions 
to  work.  The  electrical  workers  were  not  alone  in  these 
losses,  as  they  extended  to  all  the  building  trades.  The 
American  Federation  of  Labor  has  recognized  the  McNulty 
union  as  the  legitimate  one,  and  the  Reid  dual  union  has 
lost  much  of  its  power. 

The  secession  of  the  local  union  of  stone  cutters  at  St. 
Louis  in  1893  is  a  good  example  of  the  secession  of  an  entire 


84        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

local  union.  This  branch,  on  account  of  some  dissatis- 
faction with  the  national  union,  withdrew  and  decided  to 
maintain  an  independent  existence ;  but  the  national  associa- 
tion soon  after  organized  a  new  local  branch  and  enrolled 
some  of  the  secessionists,  thus  greatly  weakening  the  power 
of  the  old  branch.  There  was  continual  quarrelling  be- 
tween the  two  rival  unions  until  the  dual  organization  was 
taken  over  entirely  by  the  regular  branch.^*^  The  branch  of 
the  Lathers  at  Oakland,  California,  seceded  as  a  body  be- 
cause it  was  opposed  to  the  death-benefit  feature  of  the 
national  union,  and  it  gave  the  further  reason  that  it  desired 
to  affiliate  with  a  dual  union  of  lathers  in  San  Francisco.^^ 
In  1 90 1  the  New  York  union  of  the  Lathers  withdrew 
because  of  several  objections  to  the  practices  of  the  parent 
body,  but  mainly  on  account  of  the  special  grievance  that 
two  other  local  unions  had  been  chartered  by  the  national 
union  within  the  territory  over  which  it  desired  juris- 
diction.^^ 

The  Stone  Masons'  International  Union,  described  earlier 
in  this  chapter  as  an  incompletely  dual  union  to  the  Brick- 
layers, originated  in  1890  in  the  secession  of  the  Pittsburgh 
branch  from  the  Bricklayers.  The  reason  given  for  with- 
drawal was  that  the  national  organization  had  failed  to  en- 
dorse the  local  strike  of  the  masons  and  had  refused  to 
allow  the  strikers  the  usual  strike  benefits.  After  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  dual  organization,  conditions  were  so  un- 
satisfactory in  Pittsburgh  that  the  employers  demanded 
arbitration  of  the  dispute  between  the  rival  local  unions,  and 
finally  in  1903  a  board  of  arbitration  was  constituted  and 

^0  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  December,  1893,  p.  7. 

51  The  Lather,  March,  1902,  p.  9. 

52  Ibid.,  January,  1902,  p.  4.  A  peculiar  situation  arose  in  New 
York  when  the  local  union  affiliated  with  the  national  organization 
of  lathers  was  denied  representation  in  the  New  York  Building 
Trades  Council,  a  body  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  on  the  ground  that  this  local  union  was  composed  of  seceders 
from  the  independent  or  dual  union  of  lathers  (ibid.,  March,  1903, 
p.  5). 


DUAL  UNIONISM  8$ 

hearings  were  held.  It  was  decided  that  the  local  union  of 
the  dual  association  should  affiliate  with  the  Bricklayers, 
while  retaining  local  control  over  stonemasonry,  and  the 
branches  which  had  been  established  by  the  Bricklayers 
after  the  secession  were  ordered  to  consolidate  with  this 
newly  established  branch.^* 

The  Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers  have  had  many 
difficulties  of  this  nature.  One  of  the  organizers  reported 
to  the  convention  of  the  union  that  during  March,  1907, 
two  or  three  seceding  local  unions  had  consolidated  with  the 
Building  Laborers'  International  Protective  Union,  and  had 
formed  the  Building  Laborers'  Union  of  New  England. 
The  formation  of  these  associations,  he  declared,  was  largely 
due  to  the  machinations  of  employers.®* 

Sometimes  recognized  bodies  of  organized  workmen,  such 
as  city  federations  or  local  building  trades  councils,  have 
encouraged  dual  unionism.  In  November,  1898,  the  local 
union  of  the  Plumbers,  together  with  several  branches  of 
the  Bricklayers,  withdrew  from  the  Building  Trades  Council 
in  Milwaukee  because  they  objected  to  paying  to  the  council 
the  quarterly  per  capita  tax  of  twenty-five  cents.  The  Mil- 
waukee Council  then  organized  local  unions  to  take  the 
place  of  these  seceders,  and  sought  later,  without  success,  to 
get  a  charter  for  the  dual  union  of  plumbers  from  the 
National  Building  Trades  Council.  The  matter  was  finally 
settled  by  a  reduction  in  the  tax  and  the  return  of  the  seced- 
ing local  unions  to  the  council.*^® 

The  second  form  of  secession  is  that  in  which  only  a  part 
of  the  local  union  withdraws.  While  most  of  the  questions 
coming  before  the  local  unions  for  decision  are  settled  by  a 
majority  vote,  in  the  matter  of  maintaining  the  existence  of 
a  branch  union  nearly  all  of  the  organizations  specify  only  a 
small  number  of  persons  as  necessary  to  obtain  and  to  keep 
a  charter.     This  latter  precaution  is  adopted  largely  to  pre- 

'^^  Arbitration  Proceedings,  Pittsburgh,  1903. 

5*  Official  Journal  [Hod  Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  No- 
vember, 1907,  p.  102. 

55  Plumbers'  Journal,  February,  1899,  p.  n. 


86        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

vent  a  minority  from  being  forced  out  of  the  national  union 
against  their  wishes  simply  because  the  majority  votes  to 
secede.  Thus  the  Lathers  provide  that  "  in  event  of  any 
local  union  deciding  by  majority  vote  to  withdraw  from  the 
International  Union,  the  minority,  if  five  members  or  more, 
shall  retain  possession  of  the  charter  and  supplies ;  shall  be 
commended  to  all  central  bodies  as  the  only  legitimate  or- 
ganization ;  and  shall  receive  the  support  of  the  International 
Union  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion."«« 

The  withdrawal  of  part  of  a  local  union  while  the  other 
part  remains  loyal  is  practically  always  the  result  of 
factional  quarrels  within  the  union,  and  these  factional 
quarrels  are  frequently  due  to  the  influence  of  employers. 
In  1858  part  of  the  Washington  branch  seceded  from  the 
national  union  of  Stone  Cutters  and  formed  a  dual  associa- 
tion because  they  were  dissatisfied  with  the  conduct  of 
affairs  in  the  local  union.  The  members  who  remained 
loyal  to  the  branch  maintained  that  the  secession  was  in- 
spired and  aided  by  one  of  the  employers  for  whom  most 
of  the  secessionists  worked.''^  Secretary  McHugh  of  the 
Stone  Cutters  claims  that  nearly  every  such  dual  union  in 
"his  trade,  if  traced  back  to  its  origin,  will  be  found  to  have 
been  due  to  the  efforts  of  an  employer  during  a  strike. 
Always  at  such  a  time  there  are  some  strikers  who  are 
anxious  to  go  back  to  work,  and  if  the  employer  and  his 
foreman  are  sufficiently  skillful  they  can  spread  discontent 
and  doubt  among  the  unionists  until  two  factions  gradually 
develop,  one  desiring  to  return  to  work,  the  other  opposing 
this  plan.  It  is  not  difficult  to  widen  the  breach,  and  if 
the  antagonism  between  the  factions  becomes  intense,  one 
section  will  secede,  form  a  separate  organization,  and  re- 
sume work.     If  the  seceders  are  numerous  enough,   the 

56  Constitution,  1902,  art.  ix,  sec.  14.  The  Jersey  City  branch  of 
the  Lathers  announced  its  withdrawal  from  the  national  association 
by  a  majority  vote  (The  Lather,  March,  1902,  p.  9). 

5^  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  January,  1858,  p.  3. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  8/ 

failure  of  the  strike  will  result,  and  the  dual  union,  for  a 
time  at  least,  will  control  the  majority  of  the  union  shops 
in  the  city.®® 

The  third  group  of  dual  unions,  classified  by  origin,  is 
made  up  of  those  which  come  into  existence  through  a 
further  division  in  a  trade,  through  the  use  of  new  ma- 
terials, or  through  the  introduction  of  machinery  by  which 
skilled  work  is  reduced  to  unskilled.  Here  the  problems 
of  dual  unionism  and  demarcation  disputes  impinge  upon 
each  other.  There  is  a  close  connection  between  the  origin 
of  dual  unionism  of  this  kind  and  the  origin  of  a  large 
number  of  the  demarcation  disputes.  If  a  new  form  of 
division  of  labor  brings  into  existence  an  entirely  new  body 
of  workmen,  that  is,  workmen  who  are  not  specialized  in 
any  other  craft,  and  if  this  work  is  also  claimed  as  part  of 
its  trade  by  an  existing  union,  we  have  a  case  of  dual 
unionism.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  a  new  process  is  claimed 
as  part  of  their  work  by  both  of  two  existing  unions,  we 
have  a  demarcation  dispute.  Obviously  in  many  cases  the 
distinction  is  unimportant.  A  few  illustrations  will  make 
clear  the  manner  in  which  new  processes  or  new  forms  of 
the  division  of  labor  may  give  rise  to  dual  unions. 

When  the  bricklayers  have  completed  the  work  of  erecting  \ 
a  wall,  certain  finishing  processes  must  be  performed,  for 
the  wall  will  be  daubed  with  mortar  and  here  and  there 
will  be  found  places  where  the  cement  has  partly  crumbled 
out  between  the  stone  or  brick.  Hence  the  wall  must  be 
washed  and  the  cement  touched  up  or  "pointed."  This 
work  is  rather  tedious  and  unpleasant,  and  requires  skill 
but  little  removed  from  that  of  the  ordinary  laborer.  The 
employers  are  therefore  desirous  of  having  the  work  done  by 

58  Interview,  Secretary  McHugh,  June  17,  191 1.  The  convention 
of  the  Building  Trades  Department  in  1908  adopted  a  resolution 
calling  upon  all  affiliated  bodies  to  aid  the  Stone  Cutters'  Associa- 
tion in  every  way  in  its  fight  upon  a  dual  union  known  as  the  Na- 
tional Stonecutters'  Association,  which,  it  was  claimed,  was  organ- 
ized by  the  employers  and  made  up  of  seceders  from  the  legitimate 
union  (Proceedings,  1908,  p.  51). 


88        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

laborers  rather  than  by  bricklayers  for  the  obvious  reason 
that  it  will  be  cheaper,  and  the  Bricklayers  in  many  locali- 
ties formerly  did  not  object  to  the  arrangement,  for  they 
were  not  eager  to  do  this  disagreeable  work.  Gradually  a 
class  of  men  grew  up  who  did  this  kind  of  work  exclusively, 
and  after  a  time  they  came  to  regard  it  as  their  trade.  In 
some  places  the  Bricklayers,  claiming  that  the  work  of 
pointing  and  cleaning  walls  is  a  part  of  the  bricklayers' 
trade,  objected  to  this  specialization,  but  in  a  number  of 
large  cities  the  claims  of  the  pointers  were  not  disputed. 
When,  however,  as  a  result  of  this  acquiescence,  local  unions 
of  the  tuck  pointers  were  chartered  by  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  the  Bricklayers  made  such  strenuous 
objection  to  the  creation  of  this  incompletely  dual  union 
that  the  Federation  recalled  the  charters  it  had  already 
issued.  This  action  left  the  pointers  entirely  without 
effective  organization,  for  they  could  have  no  recognition 
by  local  federations  as  a  legitimate  union,  nor  would  their 
local  unions  be  admitted  by  the  Bricklayers  since  their 
members  were  neither  bricklayers  nor  stonemasons. 

When  the  Spring  City,  Pennsylvania,  branch  of  the 
Bricklayers,  composed  of  bricklayers,  masons,  and  plasterers, 
in  1904  submitted  its  working  code  to  the  executive  board 
for  approval,  it  was  found  that  it  had  sought  to  cover  as 
much  ground  as  possible  and  had  included  in  its  provisions 
cement  and  concrete  work  of  all  kinds.  The  executive 
board,  however,  refused  to  ratify  the  code  until  it  was  made 
clear  that  the  local  union  did  not  intend  to  admit  to  member- 
ship as  "  exclusive  "  cement  workmen  the  unskilled  laborers 
who  had  been  performing  parts  of  this  work.  The  presi- 
dent reminded  the  local  union  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
union  laws  to  admit  to  membership  men  engaged  only  in 
cement  work.  Members  might  be  bricklayers  and  cement 
workers,  or  masons  and  cement  workers,  but  none  could  be 
admitted  who  were  able  to  do  nothing  but  cement  work.^** 

At  first  sight  this  appears  to  be  an  indefensible  policy,  for 

^^  Annual  Report  of  the  President,  1904,  p.  136.    ^ 


DUAL  UNIONISM  89 

it  would  appear  that  since  these  men  were  to  be  employed 
upon  the  only  kind  of  work  for  which  they  were  trained, 
and  since  the  Bricklayers'  Union,  which  claimed  this  work, 
had  these  men  in  its  organization,  it  would  be  a  matter  of 
indifference  that  the  cement  workers  knew  nothing  about 
bricklaying  or  masonry.  Undoubtedly,  however,  such 
regulations  tend  to  discourage  any  further  subdivision  of 
the  trade  that  might  later  give  rise  to  a  demand  for  separate 
organization.  If  the  Bricklayers  could  retain  all  new 
processes  as  parts  of  the  trades  of  bricklaying  and  masonry, 
the  association  would  have  little  trouble  with  dual  union- 
ism.®^ This  has  been  their  policy  throughout,  and  the  union 
has  steadily  resisted  the  specialization  of  any  part  of  its 
work.  Economically  this  policy  seems  to  be  wrong,  for  it 
stands  in  the  way  of  progress  as  represented  by  a  more 
minute  division  of  labor  and  specialization  of  tasks.  What 
it  lacks  in  economic  and  ethical  characteristics,  however,  it 
makes  up  in  the  eyes  of  the  union  in  practicability  and 
adaptability  to  trade-union  ends,  and,  like  many  other 
policies  of  labor  organizations,  its  chief  ground  of  justifica- 
tion lies  in  the  fact  that  it  attains  the  result  desired. 

The  blending  of  demarcation  disputes  with  conflicts  of 
dual  unionism  is  seen  in  the  much-discussed  controversy 
between  the  Steam  Fitters  and  the  Plumbers.     While  the 


^^  In  1905  the  secretary  of  the  Bricklayers  exhorted  the  subor- 
dinate unions  to  oppose  any  further  division  of  their  trade,  and 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  failure  to  enforce  the  union's 
classification  of  work  in  the  following  directions  had  caused  a 
number  of  conflicts  to  arise  in  various  departments  of  the  trade: 
(i)  in  stone  and  brick  pointing;  (2)  in  the  setting  of  stone  by  stone 
setters  and  stone  cutters;  (3)  in  the  laying  of  conduits  by  handy 
laborers;  (4)  in  the  building  of  brick  cisterns  by  cistern  builders; 
(5)  in  the  training  of  exclusive  stack  builders,  by  permitting  boys 
to  be  apprenticed  exclusively  to  such  work;  (6)  in  fire-brick  work, 
also  furnace  and  boiler  work  done  in  the  mills ;  (7)  in  the  acquiring 
of  the  right,  by  handy  laborers,  to  place  cement  work  in  position 
in  buildings  without  the  supervision  of  the  bricklayer,  and  the  fin- 
ishing of  cement  floors  (Report  of  the  Secretary,  December,  1905, 
p.  332). 


go        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

difficulty  between  these  two  unions  is  a  matter  of  dual 
unionism,  the  problem  in  all  likelihood  would  not  so  long 
have  resisted  attempts  at  its  solution  if  a  contest  over  trade 
jurisdiction  were  not  involved  in  it.  It  is  the  belief  of  the 
Steam  Fitters  that,  while  the  nominal  purpose  of  the 
Plumbers  is  to  get  rid  of  dual  unionism  by  bringing  all  the 
members  of  the  pipe-fitting  industry  into  one  organization, 
their  real  purpose  in  seeking  to  consolidate  these  associa- 
tions is  gradually  to  obliterate  trade  lines  by  usurping  the 
work  of  the  steam  fitters.  The  Steam  Fitters  regard  the 
constant  activity  of  the  Plumbers  in  establishing  rival  asso- 
ciations of  steam  fitters,  with  the  object  of  forcing  all  steam 
fitters  into  the  Plumbers'  Union,  as  an  attempt  to  steal  their 
trade.  If  the  Steam  Fitters  felt  assured  that  they  could 
amalgamate  with  the  Plumbers  and  still  retain  steam  fitters' 
work  for  steam  fitters,  it  is  likely  that  a  plan  of  amalgama- 
tion could  be  adopted  without  much  difficulty.  But  they 
are  convinced  that  union  with  the  Plumbers,  even  though 
nominal  trade  autonomy  be  granted,  marks  the  trade  for 
ultimate  absorption. 

This  fear  is  not  unwarranted.  Delegate  Garrett,  of  the 
Steam  Fitters,  in  discussing  this  question  at  the  session  of 
the  Building  Trades  Department  in  1909,  said :  "  But  those 
steamfitters  [in  the  Plumbers'  Union]  are  continually  com- 
plaining about  their  condition.  They  tell  us  they  are  walk- 
ing the  streets  while  the  plumber  does  their  work.  The 
plumber  is  continually  encroaching  upon  our  trade  .  .  . 
they  [steam  fitters]  cannot  get  the  work  because  the 
plumbers  are  in  the  majority."  At  the  same  time  Delegate 
Leonard,  of  the  Plumbers,  also  showed  by  his  remarks  that 
the  Steam  Fitters  have  good  reason  to  fear  that  their  trade 
would  become  merely  a  subdivision  of  plumbers'  work  if 
they  consented  to  amalgamation.  He  said :  "  Our  trade  em- 
braces everything  in  the  pipe  fitting  industry.  We  leave  it 
to  the  different  localities  if  they  want  to  separate  themselves 
and  go  into  the  various  specialties  of  our  trade  .  .  .  You 
can  go  into  the  places  where  we  have  mixed  locals,  and 


DUAL  UNIONISM  9 1 

notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  are  mixed,  the  men  work 
at  what  they  are  best  fitted  for,  if  that  is  the  rule  of  the 
iocaHty,  without  drawing  rigid  lines  of  demarcation."®^ 

The  introduction  of  machinery  is  an  important  cause  of 
dual  union  disputes.  A  machine  may  be  introduced  which 
performs  part  of  the  work  previously  included  under  one 
trade,  or  it  may  perform  part  of  the  work  of  several  trades. 
The  union  whose  work  is  thus  reduced  usually  claims  juris- 
diction over  the  machine  operators.  It  also  not  infre- 
quently happens  that  the  operators  wish  to  organize  sepa- 
rately. In  that  event  a  dual-union  dispute  arises.  In  the 
building  trades  certain  machines  have  been  introduced  in  the 
stone,  granite,  and  wood-working  trades.  In  the  case  of  the 
Granite  Cutters  the  union  has  held  jurisdiction  over  the 
machines.  In  the  cutting  of  granite  trouble  arose  fre- 
quently when  the  employers  sought  to  use  "lumpers" — 
handy  men,  or  laborers — on  surfacing  machines.^^  The 
Granite  Cutters  claimed  jurisdiction  over  cutting,  dressing, 
carving,  and  polishing  granite,  whether  done  by  hand  or 
machine,  and  the  sharpening  of  granite-cutting  tools.  Sec- 
retary Duncan  said,  "We  do  not  stand  in  the  way  of  im- 
proved machinery,  but  hold  that  all  granite  cutting  ma- 
chines shall  be  operated  by  journeymen  members  of  our 
union."®^  To  prevent  the  trespass  of  these  machine 
operators  upon  the  work  of  the  hand  granite  cutters,  the 
constitution  of  1897  provided  for  the  admission  of  such 
machine  cutters  upon  the  same  conditions  as  the  handicraft 
men,  but  the  former  could  not  go  from  machine  work  to 
hand  work  unless  they  served  the  usual  apprenticeship  at 
granite  cutting.®* 

The  Stone  Cutters  have  faced  the  same  problem  but  less 
successfully.  The  branches  have  frequently  struck  against 
the  introduction  of  the  planer  into  their  territory  or  against 
the  use  of  stone  which  had  been  cut  elsewhere  by  machinery. 

61  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  p.  92. 
®2  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  August,  1906,  p.  2. 
63  Ibid.,  October,  1903,  p.  5. 
6*  Constitution,  1897,  sec.  yz- 


92        JURISDICTION   IN  AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

In  1896,  after  having  engaged  in  a  strike,  the  Chicago  local 
union  reported  that  thereafter  stone-cutting  machines  were 
to  be  operated  by  members  of  the  union,  and  were  to  be 
used  only  eight  hours  a  day.®^  In  1905  the  national  union 
enacted  a  rule  requiring  that  "all  planers  within  the  juris- 
diction shall  be  operated  by  members  of  this  organization."^* 
In  spite  of  this  regulation,  the  greater  part  of  the  planer 
men  remain  outside  the  Stone  Cutters'  Association,  and 
most  of  the  branches  make  no  attempt  to  enforce  the  rule. 
The  issue  between  these  dual  unions  of  the  planer  men  and 
the  Stone  Cutters  has  never  become  acute  because  the  policy 
of  the  union  has  been  vacillating. 

The  struggle  of  the  Carpenters  against  the  Wood  Workers 
has  been  the  most  important  of  the  dual-union  disputes  aris- 
ing from  the  introduction  of  machinery.  This  dispute  arose 
from  the  gradual  transference  to  mills  of  a  large  part  of  the 
work  formerly  done  by  carpenters  on  or  around  a  building. 
The  Carpenters  for  some  years  have  waged  incessant  war- 
fare for  the  control  over  this  work,  and  at  present  (1913) 
have  driven  the  Wood  Workers  from  the  field. 

Every  large  city  in  the  country  has  been  the  scene,  at  one 
time  or  another,  of  bitter  conflicts  over  jurisdiction  be- 
tween dual  unions.  The  long  and  costly  quarrel  in  Denver 
between  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the 
Amalgamated  Society  of  Carpenters,  and  the  one  in  Boston 
arising  from  the  conflict  between  the  Steam  Fitters  and  the 
Plumbers,  are  referred  to  elsewhere  in  this  study.  In  Mil- 
waukee the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  instituted  a  boycott 
against  one  of  the  big  brewing  companies  because  it  was 
employing  members  of  the  Amalgamated  Woodworkers' 
Union.*^  In  St.  Louis  the  Carpenters  threatened  to  boycott 
all  merchants  who  should  patronize  concerns  employing 
members  of  the  Woodworkers'  Union.^^ 

A  great  deal  of  trouble  was  caused  in  New  York  by  dual 

85  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  April,  1896,  p.  2. 
88  Constitution,  1905. 

87  International  Wood  Worker,  April,  1905,  p.  112. 
88i|3J(j^  j^ay,  1906,  p.  149. 


DUAL  UNIONISM  93 

unionism  among  the  structural  iron  workers.  This  diffi- 
culty arose  out  of  a  division  in  the  local  union,  one  branch 
of  which  was  led  by  the  notorious  Sam  Parks  and  the  other 
by  Robert  Neidig.  Parks's  faction  was  suspended,  but  was 
later  reinstated.  The  employers  then  organized  the  Inde- 
pendent Housesmiths'  Union  of  New  York,  and  made  an 
exclusive  agreement  with  it.  Parks  was  sent  to  prison  for 
grafting,  and  efforts  were  afterwards  made  to  have  this 
local  Housesmiths'  Union  consolidate  with  the  New  York 
branch  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers.  The  executive 
council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  the  national 
officers  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers,  and  committees  of 
various  central  bodies  sought  for  several  months  to  bring 
about  amalgamation  but  without  success,  until  finally 
Neidig  succeeded  in  effecting  a  settlement.^^ 

Secretary  Dobson  of  the  Bricklayers  reported  in  1903  that 
a  great  deal  of  energy  and  about  three  thousand  dollars  in 
money  had  been  spent  during  the  year  in  fighting  the  dual 
unions  of  stonemasons.  In  Pittsburgh  all  the  labor  unions 
of  the  city  supported  the  dual  unions  of  masons,  and  for  a 
time  a  lockout  involving  ten  thousand  men  existed.  Public 
sentiment  and  the  newspapers  opposed  the  Bricklayers,  but 
finally  arbitration  was  forced;  as  a  result  the  six  local 
unions  of  stonemasons  in  Pittsburgh  were  ordered  to 
affiliate  with  the  legitimate  organization,  and  they  did  so.^° 
In  fighting  a  dual  union  of  bricklayers  in  San  Francisco  the 
Bricklayers  sent  to  the  field  of  conflict  a  special  representa- 
tive who  opened  an  employment  bureau,  made  agreements 
with  certain  contractors,  and  used  every  effort  to  fill  the  city 
with  members  of  the  recognized  association."^^ 

The  number  and  importance  of  dual-union  disputes 
diminishes  with  the  centralization  which  is  constantly  taking 
place  in  labor  organizations  since  there  is  a  constant 
tendency  to  strengthen  the  control  of  the  national  union  over 

69  J.  R.  Commons,  "The  New  York  Building  Trades,"  in  Quarterly- 
Journal  of  Economics,  vol.  xviii,  p.  432. 

■^0  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1903,  p.  429. 
■^^  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  April,  1900,  p.  5. 


94        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

its  branches. '^^  Another  check  on  the  local  unions  in  the 
building  trades  is  the  formation  of  intermediate  federated 
associations  between  the  national  union  and  the  local  union. 
Where  several  local  unions  exist  in  the  same  community  a 
central  organization  is  formed.  The  local  unions  in  a  State 
are  not  infrequently  organized  into  a  state  association. 
There  are  also  in  process  of  development  interunion  associa- 
tions, such  as  building-trades  councils  and  local  federations 
of  labor,  which  throw  their  influence  in  most  cases  against 
dual  unionism."^^ 

This  tendency  to  full  control  by  the  national  union  re- 
sembles the  development  which  has  been  going  on  in  our 
political  organization.  There  were  first  the  separate  and 
independent  States;  then  a  federal  association  created  by 
the  States,  to  which  each  surrendered  some  of  its  authority ; 
and  after  that  a  gradual  enlargement  of  the  power  of  the 
central  government,  with  a  corresponding  loss  of  independ- 
ence and  power  by  the  States.  As  the  trade  unions  pass 
through  a  similar  evolution,  dual  unions  will  gradually  tend 
to  be  eliminated.  This  conclusion  applies  especially  to  that 
class  of  dual  associations  usually  spoken  of  as  independent 
local  unions ;  on  the  other  hand  the  tendency  to  decrease  in 
this  direction  may  be  to  some  extent  offset  by  an  increase 
in  those  dual  unions  caused  by  a  further  division  of  labor, 
by  the  use  of  new  materials,  or  by  the  introduction  of 
machinery. 

■^2  Secretary  Dobson,  in  his  annual  report  of  December,  1905,  said 
that  the  authority  of  the  national  union  over  its  local  branches  must 
be  extended  and  emphasized  lest  each  subordinate  union,  in  passing 
laws  for  its  own  interest,  prejudice  the  welfare  of  all  the  others. 

73  See  G.  E.  Barnett,  "The  Dominance  of  the  National  Labor 
Union  in  American  Labor  Organization,"  in  Quarterly  Journal  of 
Economics,  vol.  xxvii,  no.  3. 


CHAPTER   IV 
Demarcation  Disputes 

The  jurisdictional  disputes  of  trade  unions,  to  take  a  new 
point  of  view,  may  be  classified  into  (i)  those  disputes 
which  arise  within  the  trade  which  the  union  represents  and 
(2)  those  disputes  which  manifest  themselves  in  the  ex--^ 
ternal  relations  of  different  trades.  Each  of  these  groups 
of  disputes  is  also  subdivided,  so  that  we  have,  within  the 
trade,  questions  of  jurisdiction  arising  between  a  local  union 
and  the  national  union,  between  two  national  unions  in  the 
same  trade,  or  between  two  or  more  local  unions  of  the 
same  national  organization.  The  intertrade  jurisdiction 
problems  divide  into  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  claims  of 
a  specialized  class  of  workmen  to  part  of  the  work  claimed 
by  another  trade — a  class  of  difficulties  which  has  already 
been  discussed — ^and  contentions  between  two  or  more 
organizations  as  to  which  body  of  workmen  shall  have  con- 
trol over  a  certain  line  of  work  which  is  only  a  part  of 
the  work  claimed  by  either  union.  The  last  are  known  as 
demarcation  or,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  trade-jurisdiction  dis- 
putes, and  it  is  with  this  class  of  disputes  that  the  present 
chapter  is  concerned.  The  discussion  of  the  frequency  of 
demarcation  disputes,  the  estimate  of  their  evil  results  both 
to  the  unions  themselves  and  to  the  public,  and  the  search 
for  possible  remedies  will  be  deferred  to  later  chapters.  At 
present  we  are  engaged  only  in  making  an  analysis  of  such 
controversies  for  the  purpose  of  determining  their  causes. 

During  the  earlier  history  of  trade  unionism,  when  the 
tendency  toward  specialization  had  not  set  in  so  strongly 
and  labor  associations  were  not  so  numerous,  men  did  any 
work  that  they  were  competent  to  perform.  Of  course, 
most  men  were  limited  by  their  ability  or  skill  to  the  par- 
ticular branch  or  trade  which  they  had  learned  and  to  such 
work  as  was  very  closely  related  to  it,  but  there  was  rarely 

95 


96        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

opposition  on  the  part  of  other  men  if  one  man  sought 
occasionally  to  do  certain  work  outside  of  his  usual  employ- 
ment. Now,  however,  when  trades  tend  to  be  more  and 
more  divided,  the  workman  can  scarcely  move  outside  of 
his  own  narrow  line  of  work  without  trespassing  upon  the 
field  claimed  by  another  union.  This  evolution  can  be 
visualized  if  one  contrasts  the  division  of  labor  in  rural 
communities  or  small  towns  with  that  in  cities.  In  the 
former,  the  plumber  will  install  not  only  the  water,  bath, 
and  toilet  systems,  but  he  will  also  put  on  the  tin  roofing 
and  the  spouting  and  will  set  up  the  heating  system.  In 
the  city  each  of  these  constitutes  the  work  of  a  separate 
craft.  The  country  mason  not  only  cuts  stone  of  any  kind, 
but  he  places  it  in  the  wall,  and  in  many  cases  he  sets  brick 
also.  In  the  city  there  are  marble  cutters,  stone  cutters, 
and  granite  cutters,  and  these  are  distinct  from  the  stone- 
masons and  the  bricklayers.  Such  variations  in  the  divi- 
sion of  labor  are  matters  of  everyday  experience,  so  they 
need  not  be  dwelt  upon  at  length.  The  history  of  the  Brick- 
layers in  their  relation  to  the  work  of  plastering  will  serve 
as  a  typical  example  of  this  evolution. 

In  former  times  nearly  all  bricklayers  were  plasterers  as 
well,  and  one  of  the  earliest  signs  of  possible  trouble  with 
another  union  over  trade  jurisdiction  appeared  when  the 
president  of  the  Bricklayers  in  his  report  to  the  convention 
in  1868  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of 
their  members  worked  at  both  bricklaying  and  plastering, 
while  in  the  Plasterers'  Union  about  one  fifth  of  the  mem- 
bers also  did  both.  Four  local  unions  whose  members  did 
both  bricklaying  and  plastering  were  affiliated  with  both 
national  unions.^  Today,  especially  in  large  towns  or 
cities,  it  is  not  very  common  to  find  bricklayers  doing 
plastering,  or  vice  versa.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
the  trades  are  still  considered  as  very  closely  allied,  that  the 
Bricklayers  have  jurisdiction  over  a  great  many  plasterers, 
and    that    a    number    of    local    unions    of    plasterers    are 

^  Proceedings,  1868,  p.  26. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  9/ 

affiliated  with  the  Bricklayers,  bricklaying  and  plastering 
are  considered  as  two  distinct  trades.  Even  where  the 
workmen  are  both  under  the  same  national  union,  as  with 
the  Bricklayers,  a  man  cannot  change  from  one  class  of 
work  to  the  other  unless  he  demonstrates  that  he  has  learned 
the  other  trade  and  obtains  a  card  of  membership  in  that 
branch  of  work. 

The  word  "  demarcation  "  is  used  by  trade  unions  in  the 
same  sense  as  delimitation,  to  denote  the  marking  off  of 
the  bounds  within  which  a  man  who  follows  a  certain  trade 
may  legitimately  claim  the  right  to  work.  Phrases  of 
almost  parallel  significance  are  "trade  jurisdiction"  and 
"the  right  to  a  trade,"  while  the  same  idea  is  suggested  in 
the  phrase  "overlapping  trades."  This  definition  assumes 
that  there  are  limits  to  the  work  included  in  each  trade,  that 
these  boundaries  may  be  determined  with  more  or  less 
definiteness,  and  that  the  lines  of  division  are  just  and  rea- 
sonable ones.  Under  the  present  plan  of  labor  organiza- 
tion— that  is,  organization  by  trades  or  industries — the  as- 
sumption that  there  are  limits  to  the  extent  of  each  trade 
is  a  necessary  one.  The  second  assumption,  that  the 
boundaries  of  a  trade  may  be  definitely  determined,  is 
abundantly  justified  by  the  countless  instances  of  men  of 
different  unions  working  harmoniously  on  the  same  piece  of 
work  in  trades  very  closely  allied.  The  third  assumption  in 
the  definition  emphasizes  the  obvious,  since  in  every  dispute 
arising  from  overlapping  trades  each  claimant  to  the  work 
bases  his  demands  upon  what  he  maintains  is  the  reason- 
ableness and  justice  of  the  matter. 

As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  each  union  claims  the 
exclusive  right  for  its  members  to  work  at  the  trade  over 
which  it  claims  jurisdiction.  Practically  all  unions  try  to 
force  men  who  work  at  the  trade  over  which  they  claim 
jurisdiction  to  join  their  organization,  and  they  do  this  on 
the  ground  that  the  men  are  working  at  a  trade  which 
belongs  to  the  union.^    The  Lathers  go  so  far  as  to  provide 

2  See  above,  p.  41  ff. 
7 


98        JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

for  the  fining  of  persons  who  refuse  to  join  the  union  when 
requested  to  do  so,  and  they  take  measures  to  enforce  the 
fine.^  It  has  also  been  pointed  out  that  this  right  of  ex- 
clusion is  exercised  against  other  unionists  as  well  as  against 
non-unionists. 

Even  within  the  same  national  union,  where  the  member- 
ship is  composed  of  workmen  of  several  trades,  the  work 
of  each  trade  is  rigidly  confined  to  the  workmen  of  that 
trade.  The  Bricklayers,  for  instance,  maintain  a  line  of 
distinction  between  the  work  of  the  three  crafts  under  their 
jurisdiction,  and  a  member  who  is  admitted  as  a  workman 
in  one  line  can  draw  a  travelling  card  only  for  that  line, 
unless  he  can  prove  that  he'  is  efficient  in  one  of  the  other 
trades.  Thus  in  Oklahoma  a  plasterer,  who  had  drawn  a 
card  for  that  work,  sought  to  redeposit  it  as  a  stonemason, 
but  this  was  refused  until  he  could  show  that  he  was  a 
proficient  mason  as  well  as  plasterer.* 

If  the  trades  controlled  by  the  different  unions  were 
widely  dissimilar,  as,  for  instance,  stone  cutting  and  paint- 
ing, there  would  be  no  occasion  for  demarcation  disputes, 
but  when  two  trades  use  the  same  or  similar  implements, 
as  do  bricklayers  and  plasterers,  or  differ  only  slightly  from 
each  other  in  the  skill  required,  as  is  the  case  with  stone 
cutters  and  granite  cutters,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  lines  of  division  between 
them.  But  why  should  there  be  objection  on  the  part  of  one 
union  to  allowing  a  member  of  another  union  occasionally 
to  do  part  of  its  work?  Why  should  not  each  union  look 
with  equanimity  upon  the  overlapping  of  other  trades,  feel- 
ing certain  at  the  same  time  that  similar  transgressions  on 
the  part  of  its  members  will  also  be  condoned?  This  would 
seem  to  be  the  least  troublesome  attitude  to  take.  There  are 
very  definite  reasons,  however,  which  impel  unions  to  oppose 
every  trespass  upon  their  jurisdiction,  even  to  the  extent  of 
physical  assault,  which  may  even  be  fatal  to  the  intruders,  as 

3  Constitution,  1905,  art.  viii,  sec.  14. 
*  Report  of  the  President,  1902,  p.  165. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  99 

was  the  case  in  Chicago  in  the  dispute  between  the  Plumbers 
and  the  Steam  Fitters. 

The  first,  and  possibly  the  chief,  reason  for  this  is  that 
each  union  feels  that  at  any  given  time  there  is  a  definitely 
limited  amount  of  work  to  be  done  in  its  trade,  and  there- 
fore, if  another  union  does  some  of  this  work,  the  amount 
left  for  its  members  to  do  is  correspondingly  reduced.  The 
same  view  is  the  basis  of  one  of  the  most  frequent  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  shorter  work  day,  namely,  that  reducing  the 
number  of  working  hours  will  prolong  the  work.^  Here 
the  purpose  is  to  prolong  the  work  by  limiting  the  number 
of  men  who  are  permitted  to  do  it.  The  wage- fund  theory 
has  long  since  lost  its  position  of  authority  among  econ- 
omists, but  it  still  maintains  its  prestige  among  the  trade 
unionists. 

The  idea  of  limited  demand  for  labor  is  present  in  every 
trade.  The  secretary  of  the  Cleveland  branch  of  the  Stone 
Cutters  complained  some  years  ago  that  although  there  was 
a  great  deal  of  building  going  on,  the  stone  cutters  were 
not  getting  their  share  because  of  the  use  of  sawed  marble 
and  terra  cotta.*  In  Philadelphia  the  Allied  Trades  Council 
refused  to  allow  any  other  trades  to  work  with  the  Brick- 
layers because  that  union  refused  to  recognize  the  right  of 
the  clippers  and  finishers,  who  belonged  to  the  Pressers'  and 
Finishers'  Union,  to  do  the  terra  cotta  work.  The  Brick- 
layers claimed  jurisdiction  over  all  cutting  and  setting  of 
terra  cotta,  since  *' terra  cotta  is  a  clay  production  of  the 
same  nature  as  brick;  it  is  a  product  of  the  kiln  just  as  a 
brick  is."  They  pointed  out  as  a  justification  of  this  claim 
that  the  demand  for  bricklayers  to  lay  bricks  is  reduced 
by  the  use  of  terra  cotta.  On  one  building  in  Philadelphia, 
they    said,   it   required   eighteen   hundred   pieces   of   terra 

« In  the  constitution  of  the  Plumbers,  as  amended  at  Cleveland  in 
1898,  the  demand  of  the  union  for  an  eight-hour  work  day  and 
Saturday  half  holiday  is  justified  on  the  ground  that  "  the  plumbing 
business  throughout  the  country  is  insufficient  to  furnish  employ- 
ment to  more  than  fifty  or  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  journeymen.'* 

«  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  May,  1892,  p.  7. 


lOO     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN    BUILDING-TRADES    UNIONS 

cotta  to  go  once  around,  and  the  whole  building  was  to  be 
faced  in  terra  cotta.  To  quote  from  the  secretary  of  the 
Bricklayers:  "This  immense  job  is  all  terra  cotta  on  the 
outside,  and  on  the  inside  there  is  not  a  brick  to  be  laid ;  it 
is  all  backed  up  with  cement.  The  wood  cribbing  necessary 
to  do  this  is  set  up  by  a  gang  of  laborers  with  a  boss 
laborer.  Then  along  come  laborers  with  wheelbarrows 
full  of  cement  and  another  gang  stands  ready  to  shovel  it 
in.  Not  a  mechanic  is  employed.  Just  think,  where  once 
it  would  have  taken  millions  of  bricks,  a  substitute  consisting 
of  a  steel  skeleton,  terra  cotta  for  the  front  and  cement  for 
the  backing,  takes  their  place,  and  the  bricklayer's  work  is 
done  by  the  laborer  and  the  terra  cotta  worker."^  As 
illustrating  the  same  point  of  view  held  by  a  union  acting 
on  the  offensive  we  find  the  branch  of  the  Stone  Cutters  in 
Birmingham,  Alabama,  reporting  that  they  were  setting 
stone-^work  claimed  by  the  Masons — and  remarking  that 
it  was  fortunate  they  could  do  both  stone  cutting  and 
masonry,  as  otherwise  they  would  not  have  very  regular 
employment.® 

A  second  important  reason  for  insisting  that  each  union 
keep  to  its  own  trade  is  found  in  the  adherence  of  the  unions 
to  the  doctrine  of  "vested  interest,"  which  in  a  sense  is  a 
corollary  of  the  first  reason.  The  full  statement  of  this 
doctrine  would  run  somewhat  as  follows:  There  is  but  a 
limited  amount  of  work  to  be  done  by  each  trade,  and  there- 
fore all  the  work  pertaining  to  a  trade  should  be  left  to 
those  who  have  a  vested  interest  in  or  right  to  that  trade. 
The  members  of  a  union  feel  that,  having  devoted  years  to 
the  acquirement  of  skill  in  a  certain  trade,  and  having  spent 
energy  and  perhaps  money  in  improving  the  conditions  of 
work  in  that  trade,  they  have  a  certain  accumulation  or 
investment  in  it  which  justifies  them  in  resisting  any  attempt 
made  by  an  outsider  to  encroach  upon  it.®     This  is  claimed 

7  Report  of  the  Secretary,  December,  1901,  p.  313. 

8  Stone  Cutters*  Journal,  December,  1902,  p.  10. 

9 "The  journeyman's  skilled  labor  is  his  capital  and  this  property 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  10 1 

by  laboring  men  to  be  the  position  taken  by  physicians  or 
lawyers,  who  strive  to  protect  the  vested  interest  they  have 
in  their  professions  by  requiring  examinations  or  by  setting 
up  other  standards  which  must  be  met  before  the  candi- 
date is  allowed  to  engage  in  practice. 

The  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers,  for  instance,  when  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers  objected  to  their  doing  the  tinning  and 
copper  work  in  connection  with  roofing,  claimed  that  since 
they  had  been  doing  this  work  for  fifty  years  they  were 
entitled  to  regard  it  as  part  of  their  trade.^^  A  rather  novel 
example  of  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  vested  interest, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  pathetic  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  men  struggle  unavailingly  against  the  impersonal  and 
unfeeling  readjustments  which  are  continually  taking  place 
in  economic  life  in  response  to  the  demands  of  society  as  a 
whole,  is  shown  by  the  attitude  of  the  Pittsburgh  branch  of 
the  Bricklayers  toward  the  use  of  concrete.  In  1903  the 
members  of  this  branch  addressed  a  letter  to  the  builders  of 
the  city,  appealing  to  them  not  to  infringe  on  their  "  vested 
rights  as  citizens  of  the  Commonwealth."  They  protested 
against  the  use  of  concrete  and  tile  in  place  of  brickwork, 
and  further  expressed  disapproval  of  wire,  metal,  and  con- 
crete systems  of  fireproofing.^^  The  secretary  of  the  Wood, 
Wire  and  Metal  Lathers  urged  the  members  of  his  union  to 
demand  jurisdiction  over  all  lathing,  and  said  that  plasterers 
in  some  sections,  notably  Cincinnati  and  Wilkesbarre,  were 

is  as  sacred  as  any  other.  The  Shipwrights  along  the  Clyde  declare 
that  the  employer  has  no  right  to  give  away,  nor  any  other  laborer 
the  right  to  take  away,  the  work  of  another  artisan"  (Sidney  and 
Beatrice  Webb,  Industrial  Democracy,  vol.  ii,  p.  514)- 

^0  Proceedings,  1906,  p.  6. 

11  Report  of  the  President,  1903,  p.  51.  In  Philadelphia  the  Brick- 
layers made  a  similar  appeal  in  defence  of  their  vested  interests 
(The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  August,  1902,  p.  5).  In  Annapolis, 
while  erecting  one  of  the  Naval  Academy  buildings,  the  Bricklayers 
struck  on  the  job  because  in  putting  up  one  of  the  inside  walls  con- 
crete was  being  used  instead  of  brick  (Report  of  the  President, 
1903,  p.  8). 


102     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

doing  lathing,  and  were  claiming  a  right  to  the  trade  because 
they  had  always  done  their  own  lathing.^^ 

A  third  cause  for  the  objection  of  one  union  to  an  ex- 
tension of  jurisdiction  by  another  union  is  a  feeling  of 
jealousy  between  them,  which  inspires  them  to  quarrel 
bitterly  over  work  which  belongs  to  one  no  more  than  to 
the  other  and  to  which  in  many  cases  neither  can  offer  any 
reasonable  claim.  The  time  of  the  convention  of  the 
Building  Trades  Council  in  1902  was  largely  taken  up  with 
jurisdictional  quarrels  of  this  nature.^^  The  Electrical 
Workers  and  the  Plumbers  disputed  over  the  fitting  of  pipe 
for  wires;  the  Steam  Fitters  and  the  Plumbers  over 
sprinkler  fitting ;  the  Mill  Woodworkers,  the  Stair  Builders, 
and  the  Amalgamated  Carpenters  over  "  hatchet  and  saw  " 
work.  The  jurisdiction  claims  of  the  Boiler  Makers  and 
of  the  Iron  Shipbuilders,  which  one  delegate  said  included 
everything  but  the  building  of  Waterbury  watches,  were 
also  discussed.^*  This  same  jealousy  of  the  growth  of 
another  union  was  manifested  at  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers' 
convention  in  1903  in  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  protesting 
against  the  glazing  of  metal  sash  by  painters,  on  the  ground 
that  the  sheet  metal  workers  had  first  introduced  metal 
sa^." 

/a  fourth  ground  for  the  opposition  of  unions  to  aggres- 
sions on  their  jurisdiction — the  claim  of  superior  compe- 
tence— is  one  which  is  frequently  advanced  by  unionists,  but 
the  sincerity  of  which  is  open  to  question.  The  union  says 
in  effect,  "  We  do  not  object  to  trespassing  on  our  work  if 
the  trespasser  is  competent  to  do  the  work."  It  may  be 
presumed,  however,  that  if  a  union  had  no  other  objections 
to  infringement  it  would  not  oppose  it  on  this  ground,  since 
the  union  would  naturally  allow  the  employer  to  judge  of 

12  The  Lather,  February,  1902,  p.  2. 

13  Proceedings,  1902,  passim. 

1*  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  February,  1902, 
p.  33. 

15  Ibid.,  September,  1903,  p.  205. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  IO3 

the  competence  of  his  employees  and  to  suffer  if  they  were 
incompetent. 

At  the  convention  of  the  Stone  Cutters  in  1892  a  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  demanding  that  masons  and  others  who 
were  not  practical  stone  cutters  be  prohibited  from  cutting 
stone.^^  The  same  argument  was  used  by  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  in  New  York  in  a  dispute  with 
the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  as  to  which  union  was  to  control 
the  erection  of  hollow  metal  doors  and  trim.  The  Car- 
penters of  course  acknowledged  that  the  material  was  sheet 
metal  and  that  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  were  competent  to 
manufacture  it,  but  claimed  that  they  were  not  competeiit 
to  erect  it.^^  In  cutting  and  fitting  eighteen  thousand  shee^ 
of  plate  glass  in  metal  sash  in  the  erection  of  the  Belvedere 
Hotel  in  Baltimore  a  bitter  and  costly  dispute  occurred  be- 
tween the  Brotherhood  of  Painters  and  the  Sheet  Metal 
Workers  in  which  each  union  supported  its  claims  to  juris- 
diction, among  other  reasons,  on  the  ground  of  the  in- 
competency of  its  rival  to  do  the  work. 

Another  reason  for  insistence  on  the  demarcation  of 
trades  arises  in  the  difference  in  the  wages  commanded  by 
different  trades.  It  is  obvious  that,  other  things  being 
equal,  an  employer  will  buy  his  labor  as  cheaply  as  possible. 
Whenever  he  can  get  the  members  of  a  union  with  a  lower 
scale  of  wages  to  do  part  of  the  work  belonging  to  the  more 
highly  paid  craft,  he  will  seek  to  do  so.  There  is  always, 
therefore,  a  tendency  for  a  low-wage  trade  to  take  over 
parts  of  the  work  of  a  more  highly  paid  trade.  The  only 
defence  against  this  that  the  unions  possess  is  to  oppose  any 
encroachment  by  other  unions  upon  their  trade  jurisdiction. 
In  justification  of  a  strike  on  the  part  of  the  Granite  Cutters 
in  Philadelphia  against  permitting  the  masons  to  do  certain 
work  on  a  building  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
Granite  Cutters  said :  "  The  work  is  not  within  the  masons' 
proper  limits.     The  masons  get  less  pay,  and  could,  if  we 


16  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  January,  1892,  p.  7. 

17  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  April,  1909,  p.  127, 


■1 


I04     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES  UNIONS 

were  disposed  to  permit  such  innovations,  take  away  much 
of  our  work."^®  The  same  argument  is  often  pushed  to  the 
extreme  point  of  justifying  the  extension  of  trade  jurisdic- 
tion over  new  kinds  of  work  which  displace  work  hitherto 
done  by  highly  paid  workmen.  In  1903  Secretary  Dobson 
of  the  Bricklayers,  in  arguing  for  the  control  of  cement 
work  by  the  Bricklayers,  said :  "  The  protection  against  en- 
croachments on  our  trade  classification  ...  is  a  very  im- 
portant matter,  .  .  .  and  eternal  vigilance  is  required  .  .  . 
to  maintain  our  present  claims,  and  at  the  same  time,  to 
reach  out  for  more  as  new  substitutes  come  along.  There 
are  certain  kinds  of  cement  work  that  take  the  place  of 
brick  and  stone  masonry  and  must  be  controlled  by  us."^® 

A  final  reason  for  the  opposition  to  trade  aggression  is 
found  in  the  fear  that  any  overlapping  will  result  in  the 
training  in  a  part  of  the  trade  of  a  number  of  men  whom 
the  employers  can  use  to  replace  the  union  men  in  the  event 
of  a  strike.  There  have  been  occasions  in  the  history  of 
nearly  all  unions  that  have  had  jurisdictional  disputes  over 
the  boundaries  of  their  trade  when  the  places  of  members 
of  one  union  have  been  taken  during  a  strike  by  members 
of  another  union  who  had  grown  familiar  with  certain  of 
the  border-line  features  of  the  trade  through  the  failure  of 
the  first  union  to  maintain  at  all  times  its  complete  juris- 
diction. 

In  Jamestown,  New  York,  the  Dahlstrom  Sheet  Metal 
Company  had  a  plant  whose  workmen  were  members  of  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Union.  The  company  also  erected 
its  material  in  New  York  City.  When  Judge  Gaynor 
decided  that  the  erection  of  metal  trim  belonged  to  the  Car- 
penters, the  sheet  metal  workers  in  the  factory  at  James- 
town struck  to  force  the  Dahlstrom  Company  to  employ 
only  sheet  metal  workers  in  their  construction  work  in 
New  York.  While  these  men  were  on  strike,  the  Carpenters 
offered  to  make  an  agreement  with  the  company  to  supply 

18  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  August,  1885,  p.  8. 

19  Report  of  the  Secretary,  1903,  p.  436. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  10$ 

men  to  manufacture  and  to  erect  the  metal  work.  This 
agreement  was  made,  and  the  Jamestown  local  union  of  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Union,  coerced  and  frightened  by  the 
threat  that  both  the  manufacture  and  the  erection  of  metal 
trim  was  to  be  given  to  the  Carpenters,  joined  that  union, 
thus  bringing  the  strike  to  an  end.  When  the  Sheet  Metal 
Workers  protested  against  this  action,  the  Carpenters 
offered  to  turn  these  factory  men  back  to  them  if  they 
would  agree  not  to  call  strikes  against  the  Brotherhood  of 
Carpenters  when  its  members  were  erecting  the  material.^® 

Demarcation  controversies,  no  matter  how  varied  their 
origin  may  seem  to  be  or  how  different  the  attendant  cir- 
cumstances, all  arise  from  one  of  a  few  causes  or  from 
a  combination  of  these.  Such  disputes  can  be  traced  to 
(i)  changes  in  industrial  methods,  (2)  the  introduction  of 
machinery,  (3)  the  introduction  of  new  materials,  or  (4) 
aggression,  that  is,  the  desire  of  the  union  to  expand  and 
grow. 

Disputes  arising  from  changing  methods  in  industry  fall 
into  several  classes  as  they  are  caused  by  the  introduction 
of  new  forms  of  the  division  of  labor,  or  by  variations 
among  different  localities  in  the  manner  of  executing  work, 
or  by  changes  in  the  work  awarded  to  certain  classes  of 
contractors.  Illustrations  of  the  manner  in  which  each  of 
these  changes  in  industrial  methods  may  produce  a  demarca- 
tion dispute  will  be  given. 

Changes  in  industry  manifest  themselves  chiefly  in  new 
forms  of  the  division  of  labor.  These  occur  so  rapidly  and 
so  continuously  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  labor  organiza- 
tion to  readjust  its  jurisdiction  in  accordance  with  each  new 
division.  A  union  which  does  work  that  was  once  part 
of  the  work  of  another  craft  is  almost  certain  to  have  de- 
marcation disputes  with  the  older  association.  Thus,  the 
Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers  indicted  the  Plasterers  and 
the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  before  a  convention 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  because  these  two 

20  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  p.  82  ff. 


I06     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

organizations  claimed  the  right  to  put  on  lath.^i  Not  more 
than  a  generation  or  two  ago  the  trade  of  masonry  was  re- 
garded as  including  the  cutting  as  well  as  the  setting  of 
stone,  but  at  present  in  nearly  all  sections  of  the  country 
this  work  is  divided  into  two  trades.  The  Granite  Cutters 
and  the  Stone  Cutters  have  continually  had  trouble  with  the 
masons  belonging  to  the  Bricklayers  and  Masons  because 
the  latter  persisted  in  disregarding  the  division  between  the 
work  of  stone  cutting  and  that  of  stone  setting.  During 
1886  the  local  union  of  the  Granite  Cutters  at  Amsterdam, 
New  York,  had  a  long  dispute  with  the  Masons  who  were 
cutting  granite  for  foundations  which  would  appear  above 
ground,  such  as  those  for  bay  windows.^^  A  strike  affect- 
ing two  hundred  granite  cutters  occurred  in  Philadelphia 
during  August,  1885.  A  contractor,  repairing  the  stone 
work  on  some  of  the  buildings  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, put  two  masons  at  work  cutting  and  trimming  the 
stone.  The  Granite  Cutters  who  worked  for  this  same  con- 
tractor threatened  to  strike  on  all  his  jobs  on  which  they 
were  working  unless  he  would  withdraw  these  masons,  or 
stone  setters,  and  put  granite  cutters  in  their  places.  This 
he  refused  to  do,  claiming  that  such  work  had  always  been 
done  by  masons,  and  when  his  granite  cutters  struck,  all 
the  employers  in  the  city  locked  out  the  union.^^  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Masons  not  infrequently  engage  in  a  de- 
marcation dispute  with  the  Stone  Cutters  because  the  latter 
set  stone  as  well  as  cut  it.  This  was  the  cause  of  a  strike 
in  Pittsburgh  in  1903.  In  Washington  during  1904  a  very 
complicated  situation  came  about,  involving  the  Granite 
Cutters,  the  Stone  Cutters,  and  the  Masons,  because  of  the 
divisions  and  subdivisions  of  labor  in  the  cutting  and  setting 
of  stone.  The  Masons  claimed  the  right  to  cut  stone  for 
certain  uses,  no  matter  what  its  material  or  hardness,  and 
to  set  all  stone.     The  Granite  Cutters  made  no  claim  to 

21  The  Lather,  December,  1902,  p.  10. 

22  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  December,  1886,  p.  4. 

23  Ibid.,  August,  1885,  p.  8. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  lO/ 

setting,  but  they  demanded  the  exclusive  right  to  cut  all 
granite,  while  the  Stone  Cutters  maintained  their  right  to 
cut  all  soft  stone  and  also  to  set  it.  The  dispute  was  finally 
settled  by  arbitration.^* 

An  excellent  example  of  the  way  in  which  a  new  division 
of  labor  leads  to  jurisdictional  disputes  is  furnished  by  the 
frequent  and  bitter  quarrels  which  have  raged  about  the 
construction  and  installation  of  elevators  in  Chicago.  This 
work  has  been  claimed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  Elevator  Con- 
structors, Machinists,  Electricians,  Millwrights,  Plumbers, 
Ornamental  Iron  Workers,  and  Structural  Iron  Workers. 
The  whole  work  was  formerly  done  by  the  Elevator  Con- 
structors, but  when  they  struck  for  an  increase  in  wages  in 
Chicago,  the  Machinists  took  their  places  and  have  since 
claimed  part  of  the  work.  The  Electricians  now  claim  the 
electrical  work  in  connection  with  elevators,  the  Millwrights 
claim  part  of  the  work,  and  the  Steam  Fitters  and  the 
Plumbers  both  dispute  with  the  Elevator  Constructors  for 
the  hydraulic  work. 

Differences  in  the  form  of  the  division  of  labor  in  dif- 
ferent communities  also  give  rise  to  numerous  disputes. 
The  new  method  may  be  introduced  by  an  employer  coming 
into  the  section  from  another  district  and  bringing  with  him 
the  classification  of  his  former  establishment,  or  it  may  be 
brought  in  by  workmen  who  travel  from  one  place  to  the 
other.  However  introduced,  if  it  causes  any  considerable 
realignment,  disputes  are  bound  to  arise.  After  many  dis- 
agreements between  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  and  the 
Bridge  and  Structural  Iron  Workers  because  of  different 
customs  in  different  communities  in  the  erection  of  steel 
sheeting,  it  was  agreed  that  the  organization  which  then 
had  admitted  possession  of  the  work  in  any  locality  should 
remain  undisturbed,  but  in  those  districts  where  the  work 
was  in  dispute  the  union  receiving  the  highest  rate  of  wages 
and  the  best  working  conditions  should  have  the  work.^"* 

24  Report  of  the  President,  Bricklayers  and  Masons,  1904,  p.  4  ff. 

25  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  December,  1909, 
p.  502. 


I08     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

The  Granite  Cutters  protested  at  their  convention  in  1896 
against  the  action  of  the  Masons  in  preventing  the  granite 
cutters  of  Chester  and  Pittsfield,  Massachusetts,  from 
cutting  stone  jambs,  door  sills,  and  corners  unless  they 
should  become  members  of  the  local  union.^^  In  a  great 
jurisdictional  dispute  in  Philadelphia  during  1905  conditions 
were  reversed,  and  the  masons  were  the  aggrieved  party 
because  the  Granite  Cutters  claimed  the  right  to  set  granite 
in  that  community.^^ 

The  national  or  international  unions  must  of  course  have 
uniform  claims  to  trade  jurisdiction  throughout  their  terri- 
tory, and  they  cannot  modify  these  in  harmony  with  the 
customs  in  each  locality.  It  is  quite  common,  when  a 
national  union  brings  one  of  its  local  unions  to  account  for 
permitting  certain  violations  of  the  trade  jurisdiction  of  the 
national  union,  to  hear  the  members  of  the  local  union  reply 
that  they  were  merely  following  the  custom  of  their  com- 
munity. 

Convenience  frequently  leads  to  the  awarding  of  contracts 
or  the  execution  of  them  in  such  a  manner  as  to  result  in 
demarcation  disputes.  Not  infrequently  a  building  con- 
tractor finds  it  expedient  to  sublet  what  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  union  are  several  distinct  kinds  of  work  to  the  same 
subcontractor,  who  will  seek  to  use  the  same  group  of  men 
through  all  stages  of  his  work.  The  convenience  of  this 
arrangement  is  often  offered  as  justification  for  the  tres- 
passes of  one  union  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  other  unions. 
In  the  dispute  over  the  glazing  of  metal  sash  in  the  Belve- 
dere Hotel,  Baltimore,  already  mentioned,  the  Sheet  Metal 
Workers  claimed  that  they  ought  to  do  this  work  because 
the  contractor  who  took  the  contract  to  put  up  skylights  and 
metal  sash  in  a  building  had  of  necessity  to  include  in  his 
contract  the  glazing.^®  In  this  case,  however,  the  Brother- 
's Proceedings,  1896,  p.  75. 

27  Report  of  the  Officers,  Bricklayers  and  Masons,  December,  190S, 
p.  165. 

28  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers*  Journal,  November,  1903, 
p.  265. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  IO9 

hood  of  Painters  and  Decorators,  of  which  the  glaziers  are 
members,  was  able  to  point  out  that  the  contract  for  glazing 
was  let  separately  and  was  awarded  to  a  painting  contractor. 
When  conflicts  have  occurred  over  this  work  in  Chicago, 
the  sheet  metal  contractors  have  insisted  that  it  is  pref- 
erable for  their  men  when  working  on  skylights  and 
windows  to  place  the  glass.^® 

Demarcation  disputes  are  not  often  directly  due  to  the 
introduction  of  machinery.  They  may  arise,  of  course, 
through  a  dispute  between  the  union  of  machine  operators 
and  the  handicraftsmen  as  to  whether  certain  work  can 
properly  be  done  on  the  machine,  but  a  union  strong  enough 
to  draw  a  fine  jurisdictional  line  against  machine  work 
would  probably  be  strong  enough  to  keep  machines  out  of 
the  trade.  In  1901  the  men  who  ran  the  planers  in  New 
York,  who  were  organized  in  a  union  independent  of  the 
Stone  Cutters,  complained  that  the  Stone  Cutters  were 
doing  work  which  properly  belonged  to  the  machine  men.^® 
Ordinarily,  however,  where  the  autonomy  of  the  machine 
union  has  once  been  recognized  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
drawing  a  line  of  demarcation. 

There  is  another  less  tangible  aspect  of  the  introduction 
of  machinery  in  its  relation  to  jurisdiction.  Any  extended 
use  of  machinery  always  brings  about  a  certain  standardiza- 
tion of  the  product,  and  this  tends  to  bring  into  use,  for 
setting  up  or  placing  the  product,  a  class  of  workmen  who 
need  only  a  small  degree  of  manual  dexterity  instead  of  a 
complete  knowledge  of  the  trade.^^    These  relatively  un- 

29  Report  on  Trade  Jurisdiction  Disputes  in  Chicago,  1912.  By 
Building  Employers'  Association. 

30  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  March,  1901,  p.  6. 

31  The  great  increase  in  the  use  of  machinery  and  the  resultant 
necessary  assembling  of  machines  and  men  in  one  place — the  shop — 
has  greatly  reduced  the  amount  of  work  done  on  the  job.  This 
tends  toward  the  substitution  of  unskilled  workmen  both  on  the 
job  and  in  the  shop.  In  the  latter  the  division  of  labor,  the  use 
of  machinery,  and  the  repetition  of  uniform  tasks  make  unnecessary 
a  knowledge  of  any  particular  trade,  while  on  the  job  special  skill 
is  also  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  fact  that  the  chief  work  is  the 


I  10     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN    BUILDING-TRADES    UNIONS 

skilled  workmen  tend  to  displace  the  skilled  mechanics,  and 
wherever  these  two  classes  meet  there  will  be  a  conflict  of 
jurisdiction.  Since  the  manufacture  of  standard  parts  and 
joints  for  plumbing  the  amount  of  skill  necessary  to  work 
at  the  plumbing  trade  has  steadily  decreased.  Some  of  the 
most  ornate  and  beautiful  examples  of  plastering,  which 
formerly  required  almost  the  skill  of  an  artist  to  produce, 
are  now  made  up  in  factories  in  the  shape  of  strips  or 
squares  on  a  back  of  burlap  or  canvas,  and  they  can  be 
placed  in  buildings  almost  as  well  by  laborers  as  by  skilled 
workmen.  This  whole  tendency  toward  standardization, 
which  is  the  accompaniment  and  the  necessary  aim  of  the 
introduction  of  machinery,  offers  a  fruitful  source  for  trade 
disputes  not  only  between  skilled  and  unskilled  workmen, 
but  more  often  between  men  of  nearly  equal  skill,  though  in 
different  trades.  For  example,  the  introduction  of  certain 
standard  forms  for  decorative  plastering  has  caused  trouble, 
on  the  one  hand  between  the  Plasterers  and  the  Carpenters, 
and  on  the  other  between  the  Plasterers  and  the  Painters 
and  Decorators. 

So  numerous  are  the  disputes  growing  out  of  the  intro- 
duction of  new  materials  that  it  might  well  be  maintained 
that  if  no  more  new  materials  were  introduced  into  the 
construction  of  buildings  the  unions  in  the  building  trades 
would  gradually  reach  an  adjustment  of  their  claims  which 
would  almost  entirely  eliminate  demarcation  disputes. 
There  is  a  general  correspondence  in  the  attitude  of  trade 
unions  toward  new  materials  coming  into  the  trade  and 
their  attitude  toward  machinery.  If  the  use  of  the  ma- 
terials threatens  to  displace  the  members  of  the  union,  the 
attitude  of  the  union  is  in  many  respects  the  same  as  where 

assembling  of  materials  which  have  already  been  prepared  in  the 
factory  or  mill.  Of  course  the  trades  being  displaced  object,  and 
disputes  as  to  jurisdiction  arise.  This  change  from  skilled  to  un- 
skilled work  also  makes  it  unnecessary  for  a  workman  to  serve  an 
apprenticeship.  This  removes  the  chief  foundation  on  which  claims 
to  jurisdiction  are  built. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  I  I  I 

machinery  is  introduced.  Moreover,  the  methods  of  oppos- 
ing the  use  of  the  new  materials  are  analogous  to  those  used 
in  opposing  the  introduction  of  machinery.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  the  use  of  the  new  materials  does  not  displace  the 
members  of  the  craft,  or  if  their  use  adds  to  the  amount 
of  work  the  trade  can  claim,  the  new  materials  will  be 
welcomed.  The  Bricklayers  encouraged  the  use  of  fireproof 
tiling,  but  opposed  the  use  of  concrete.  One  method  of 
discouraging  the  use  of  concrete  was  to  insist  that  the  work 
should  be  done  by  bricklayers,  with  the  result  that  concrete 
work  was  made  more  expensive  than  brick  or  stone.  They 
have  steadily  tried  to  discourage  its  use  by  claiming  that  it 
is  unsafe,  and  their  official  journal  and  proceedings  are  full 
of  references  to  collapsed  concrete  buildings.  They  appeal 
to  the  officials  in  charge  of  public  works  to  use  materials 
controlled  by  them,  and  on  new  private  construction  they 
exert  whatever  influence  they  can  to  secure  the  same  result. 

Out  of  the  great  number  of  jurisdictional  conflicts  which 
are  caused  by  the  members  of  one  trade  working  on  ma- 
terials claimed  to  be  under  the  control  of  another  it  will  be 
possible  to  consider  only  a  few  typical  examples.  The 
Journeymen  Stone  Cutters  in  1901  had  trouble  in  Pitts- 
burgh with  the  Bricklayers  concerning  the  cutting  of  terra 
cotta,  which  the  Bricklayers  claimed  because,  as  they  said, 
they  had  jurisdiction  over  everything  made  of  clay.^^ 

The  Bricklayers  are  particularly  exposed  to  jurisdictional 
troubles  because  the  union  includes  the  three  trades  of 
bricklaying,  plastering,  and  masonry,  each  of  which  works 
with  a  separate  material.  Disputes  arose  in  Boston  and 
Philadelphia  during  1902  over  the  question  of  the  right  to 
put  up  plaster  block  partition.  This  work  was  claimed  by 
the  Operative  Plasterers  as  plastering,  and  by  the  Brick- 
layers as  part  of  bricklaying.  The  blocks  are  manufactured 
ready  to  set  up,  but  in  preparing  the  bed  and  the  cross 
joints  plasterers'  tools  are  used.     The  Bricklayers,  how- 

32  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  March,  1901,  p.  16. 


112     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

ever,  claimed  this  "as  well  as  any  other  substitute  that 
takes  the  place  of  brick  and  tile."  An  effort  was  made  by 
the  Bricklayers  to  get  the  manufacturers  of  the  plaster 
blocks  to  agree  to  allow  the  work  to  be  directed  only  by 
bricklayers,  but  this  failed,  for  the  manufacturers  were  en- 
gaged also  in  the  sale  of  stucco-hair  and  cement,  and  there- 
fore were  unwilling  to  discriminate  against  the  Plasterers, 
who  might  boycott  their  other  goods.  The  Bricklayers  were 
therefore  forced  to  use  other  means  of  securing  jurisdiction. 
In  Philadelphia  the  Operative  Plasterers  refused  to  plaster 
a  building  where  plaster  block  partitions  were  to  be  used 
unless  they  were  allowed  also  to  put  up  the  plaster  block. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  stonemasons,  who  are  in  the  same 
national  union  as  the  bricklayers,  refused  to  do  any  more 
work  on  the  building  unless  the  plaster  block  work  should  be 
given  to  the  Bricklayers.  It  was  finally  so  awarded,  and 
the  Operative  Plasterers  then  quit  work  on  the  building. 
The  president  of  the  Bricklayers  brought  in  plasterers  from 
their  branch  in  Atlantic  City,  and  they  completed  the 
plastering.^^ 

The  new  and  rapidly  increasing  use  of  hollow  tile  and 
block  arching  for  fireproofing  caused  considerable  trouble 
for  the  Bricklayers,  and  their  president  continually  urged 
the  local  unions  to  secure  exclusive  control  of  this  new 
work  as  it  came  into  use.  During  1905,  disputes  with 
laborers'  organizations  over  such  work  occurred  chiefly  in 
New  York,  Buffalo,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  and  Louis- 
ville.^* The  increasing  use  of  concrete  absorbed  a  great 
deal  of  the  union's  attention,  as  this  development  has 
threatened  to  replace  bricklayers  by  ordinary  laborers  who 
could  mix  and  shovel  in  concrete.^**    A  committee  on  con- 

33  Secretary's  Report  to  the  Bricklayers'  Union,  1902,  p.  361. 

**  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary,  December,  1905,  p.  391. 

35  Report  of  the  President,  December,  1903,  p.  4.  The  president 
approved  the  attitude  of  the  Pittsburgh  union,  which  claimed  all 
concrete  work  for  bricklayers,  and  urged  that  such  concrete  be 
shoveled  into  place  with  "  small  sugar  scoops,"  so  as  to  make  its 
use  more  expensive  than  brick  and  stone. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  II  3 

Crete  has  been  an  almost  perennial  affair  in  the  conventions 
of  the  Bricklayers.  The  use  of  exterior  tile  veneer  in  the 
construction  of  buildings  in  San  Francisco  caused  a  dispute 
during  the  latter  part  of  1907  between  the  Bricklayers  and 
the  Tile  Layers,  in  which  the  Bricklayers  claimed  jurisdic- 
tion over  all  exterior  tile  work.^® 

The  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Union  has  had  many  juris- 
dictional struggles  caused  by  the  introduction  of  new  ma- 
terials. Its  continued  dispute  with  the  United  Brotherhood 
of  Carpenters  is  perhaps  the  most  important.  Almost  every 
issue  of  the  official  organ  of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers 
during  1909,  1910,  and  1911  makes  some  mention  of  contro- 
versies with  the  Carpenters,  who  had  flatly  refused  to 
comply  with  the  decision  of  the  Tampa  Convention  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  which  conceded  the  manu- 
facture and  erection  of  hollow  metal  doors  and  trim  to  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers.  The  Carpenters  claim  this  work,  as 
has  been  said,  on  the  ground  that  it  takes  the  place  of  work 
formerly  done  by  them  and  has  been  fast  supplanting  wood 
work  in  large  buildings. ^^  The  Sheet  Metal  Workers  have 
also  had  frequent  and  bitter  disputes  with  the  Painters  over 
the  glazing  of  metal  sash.  The  former  contend  that  the 
glass  must  be  capped  and  soldered  with  Sheet  Metal  Work- 
ers' materials  and  therefore  should  be  under  their  trade 
jurisdiction.  The  manufacture,  erection,  and  installation 
of  metal  furniture  has  caused  a  number  of  demarcation 
quarrels  between  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  and  the  Struc- 
tural Iron  Workers,  with  the  decision  by  the  Building 
Trades  Department  in  favor  of  the  former.^^ 

36  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  July,  1899,  p.  i- 

37  In  Chicago,  during  1912,  this  conflict  in  jurisdiction  caused 
trouble  in  work  on  the  Jewish  Temple  and  the  Insurance  Exchange 
Building.  One  contractor  was  erecting  both  buildings,  and  the  Car- 
penters threatened  that  if  the  work  in  dispute  on  the  Temple  should 
be  given  to  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  they  would  tie  up  work  on  the 
Exchange  Building.  The  Sheet  Metal  Workers  threatened  that  if 
it  was  awarded  to  the  Carpenters,  they  would  refuse  to  erect  the 
sheet  metal  work  on  the  Exchange  Building. 

38  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  March,  1909,  p.  95. 
8 


114     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

The  Composition  Roofers,  Damp  and  Waterproof 
Workers  have  had  disputes  with  the  Painters  over  the 
question  of  applying  a  waterproofing  solution  to  the  walls 
of  buildings.  During  1906  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  were 
driven  off  a  building  in  Boston  by  the  Bricklayers,  who 
claimed  the  work.  The  material  was  known  as  Promenade 
Tile  Roofing,  and  it  was  claimed  by  the  Bricklayers  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  made  of  clay  and  that  they  had  juris- 
diction over  all  clay  products.  It  was  also  claimed  by  the 
Ceramic,  Mosaic  and  Encaustic  Tile  Layers  because  the 
material  was  the  same  as  that  of  which  some  tiled  floors  are 
made.^^ 

Probably  no  union  has  experienced  more  difficulty  on  ac- 
count of  opposing  claims  to  the  materials  it  uses  than  the 
Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers.  The  introduction  of  every 
new  form  of  lathing  material  has  meant  a  jurisdictional 
contest.  The  work  of  putting  up  wire  and  metallic  lath, 
which  is  one  of  the  basic  claims  of  the  union,  has  also  been 
claimed  by  the  Structural  Iron  Workers  and  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers."*®  In  the  matter  of  putting  on  plaster  board 
the  Lathers  have  had  to  contend  with  the  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters.*^  At  the  convention  of  the  National 
Building  Trades  Council  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters 
sought  to  have  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  channel 
iron  studding  and  bracket  work  were  gradually  taking  the 
place  of  wood  studding,  and  that  therefore  such  work  be- 
longed to  them  or,  in  localities  where  they  had  no  branches, 
to  the  Structural  Iron  Workers.*^  This  resolution  was  de- 
feated and  the  work  awarded  to  the  Lathers.  In  the  erec- 
tion of  the  World's  Fair  Buildings  at  St.  Louis  a  dispute  of 
considerable  magnitude  and  long  duration  occurred  between 
the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  Lathers  over  the 
putting  on  of  Burkett  Lath,  the  work  finally  being  awarded 

39  Proceedings,  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers'  Union,  1906,  p.  6. 
*o  The  Lather,  February,  1902,  p.  2. 
*i  Ibid.,  September,  1903,  p.  22. 
*2Ibid.,  May,  1906,  p.  22. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  1X5 

to  the  Lathers.'*^  Besides  the  foregoing,  the  Lathers  have 
had  demarcation  disputes  with  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers 
in  regard  to  putting  up  metal  studding  to  hold  lath;  with 
the  Structural  Iron  Workers  over  the  erection  of  light  iron 
furring,  brackets,  clips,  hangers,  and  steel  corner  guards  or 
beads,  and  with  the  same  union  over  the  placing  of  the 
iron  rods  for  reinforced  concrete  and  over  the  installing 
of  the  metal  netting  used  for  fireproofing  and  concrete 
flooring. 

A  final  cause  of  demarcation  disputes  is  the  spirit  of 
aggression  coming  from  the  desire  on  the  part  of  a  union 
to  grow  and  expand.  In  the  pursuit  of  this  ambition  a 
union  will  attempt  to  obtain  work  which  is  claimed  by 
another  and  usually  a  weaker  association.  It  can  scarcely 
be  doubted  that  many  of  the  claims  to  jurisdiction  over 
work  put  forward  on  other  grounds  have  their  real  basis  in 
the  ambition  of  the  union  officials.  It  is  not  often  that  this 
desire  to  take  over  the  work  of  another  union  is  expressed 
so  frankly  as  it  was  by  one  of  the  branches  of  the  Stone 
Cutters.  It  was  proposed  by  this  branch  that,  since  disputes 
were  constantly  occurring  between  the  stone  cutters  and  the 
masons,  and  since  the  introduction  of  machinery  was  likely 
to  displace  many  stone  cutters,  stone  cutter  apprentices 
should  be  taught  to  set  stone,  so  that  in  case  of  dispute  or 
scarcity  of  work  in  their  own  trade  they  could  do  the  work 
of  masons.**  The  Bricklayers  in  Scranton  became  involved 
in  a  dispute  with  the  Structural  Iron  Workers  because  the 
Bricklayers  claimed  the  right  to  place  iron  girders  in  posi- 
tion when  the  work  required  only  a  few  pieces, — "  odds  and 
ends,"  as  they  called  them.*^  In  191 1  the  Bricklayers  were 
much  aroused  over  the  tendency  of  the  Cement  Workers  to 
enlarge  their  jurisdiction  by  claims  to  set  cement  and  tile 
blocks,  cement  floors,  artificial  stone,  and  all  plastering 
work  in  which  cement  is  used.*^ 

*3  The  Lather,  July,  1903,  p.  2(i. 

**   Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  September,  1902,  p.  9. 

*5  Report  of  the  President,  1903,  p.  7. 

*^The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  August,  1911,  p.  i. 


Il6      JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

At  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  convention  in  1904  a 
resolution  was  adopted  urging  the  executive  board  to  en- 
deavor to  consolidate  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  with  their 
organization,  and  to  provide  that  in  localities  where  there 
are  not  sufficient  men  to  form  a  separate  local  union  of 
slate  and  tile  roofers  they  be  compelled  to  join  the  local 
union  of  sheet  metal  workers.*^  The  president  of  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers  in  his  report  to  one  of  the  conventions,*® 
after  emphasizing  the  necessity  of  defending  their  estab- 
lished trade  jurisdiction,  said,  "There  is  a  very  apparent 
disposition,  shown  by  a  number  of  trades,  to  broaden  their 
trade  jurisdiction  lines,  and  in  so  doing  they  show  no 
hesitancy  in  encroaching  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  others." 
The  Granite  Cutters  gave  expression  to  the  same  spirit  of 
aggression  by  inserting  in  their  constitution  of  1909  the 
following  clause :  "  Branches  reserve  the  right  to  set  all 
stone  cut  by  members  of  our  International  Association  if 
so  desired."*® 

The  members  of  the  Baltimore  local  association  of  the 
Lathers  sought  to  extend  their  jurisdiction  at  the  expense 
of  the  Carpenters  when  in  1904  they  struck  to  enforce  their 
claim  to  wood  centering,  which  the  Carpenters  had  been 
doing.  The  president  of  their  national  union,  however, 
notified  them  that  such  work  belonged  to  the  Carpenters 
and  that  their  charter  would  be  revoked  unless  they  re- 
turned to  work.^^  In  1905  the  secretary  of  the  Lathers 
suggested  that  the  name  of  the  organization  be  changed 
from  the  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers'  International 
Union  to  Lathers'  International  Union,  on  the  ground  that 
the  latter  title  was  expansive  and  might  be  made  to  cover 
more  work.**^    A  few  months  later  at  the  Toronto  convention, 

47  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  240. 

*8  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  October,  1908, 
p.  375. 

*9  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  141. 

^0  The  Lather,  September,  1904,  p.  13. 

51  Ibid.,  May,  1906,  p.  21. 


DEMARCATION  DISPUTES  11/ 

in  Speaking  of  the  jurisdictional  claims  of  the  union,  he  said : 
"  In  this  respect  we  differ  from  nearly  every  other  building 
trades  organization.  We  do  not  endeavor  to  push  out  our 
authority  over  work  not  plainly  in  line  with  that  which  our 
craft  should  control.  .  .  .  We  are  not  continually  adding  to 
our  jurisdiction  claims. "^^  . 

While  hardly  rising  to  the  importance  of  being  classified  ^ 
as  a  cause  of  jurisdictional  disputes,  the  trade-union  poli- 
tician and  grafter,  who  preys  alike  upon  unionists  and  em- 
ployers, is  an  element  in  preventing  the  settlement  of  suoh 
disputes.  This  individual  is  in  the  labor  movement  for  his 
personal  profit,  and  his  most  successful  operations  are  made 
possible  by  conflicts  between  unions  over  the  problems  of 
jurisdiction.  By  playing  off  one  organization  against  the 
other  and  by  urging  an  aggression  here  or  there,  he  divides 
the  labor  camp  into  hostile  parties,  so  that  conditions  are 
ripe  for  sympathetic  strikes — the  usual  weapon  adopted  by 
unions  to  enforce  their  claims  to  work  in  dispute.  With 
this  as  a  club,  he  forces  employers,  hurrying  to  complete  a 
contract,  to  stand  and  deliver,  or,  if  a  strike  has  been  in- 
augurated, it  can  be  ended  in  many  cases  only  by  a  satis- 
factory payment  to  the  labor  politician.  More  than  any 
other  part  of  the  trade-union  world  the  building-trades 
unions  have  suffered  from  this  type  of  local  labor  leader,, 
and  the  explanation  lies  largely  in  the  greater  prevalence  of 
jurisdictional  disputes  in  that  group.  /^ 

It  was  said  above  that  if  all  changes  in  industry  were  to 
cease,  demarcation  disputes  would  become  few  in  number. 
There  are,  however,  certain  disputes  which  may  be  said 
to  have  their  origin  in  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  with 
any  degree  of  precision  the  exact  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween two  trades.  It  is  conceivable  that  such  disputes 
might  ultimately  be  settled,  but  they  persist  for  such  long 
periods  that  they  may  almost  be  regarded  from  the  stand- 
point of  origin  as  a  separate  class.     Granite  Cutters  and 

52  The  Lather,  October,  1906,  p.  18. 


Il8      JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

Stone  Cutters  work  on  material  so  similar  that  the  two 
organizations  could  scarcely  avoid  dispute.  The  stone 
cutters  work  upon  softer  material  than  do  the  granite 
cutters,  but  it  is  frequently  hard  to  tell  where  to  draw  the 
line  of  division.  At  one  time,  in  order  to  settle  a  dispute, 
the  stone  in  question  was  sent  to  the  Smithsonian  Institution 
for  analysis  to  determine  whether  it  was  a  hard  or  a  soft 
stone.  The  records  of  the  two  unions  are  full  of  jurisdic- 
tional quarrels  caused  by  the  question  of  the  materials  used. 
One  of  the  branches  of  the  Stone  Cutters  reported  that  it 
had  been  having  a  good  deal  of  trouble  with  the  blue-stone 
cutters  and  was  trying  to  get  them  to  join  their  branch,*^^ 
while  the  Washington  branch  of  the  Stone  Cutters  fined 
some  granite  cutters  for  working  on  marble,  which  they  said 
belonged  to  the  stone  cutters.*** 

In  determining  jurisdiction  there  appears  also  to  be  great 
difficulty  in  applying  the  criterion  of  the  tool  used.  A  very 
large  part  of  the  disputes  of  the  Granite  Cutters  grow  out  of 
their  insistence  on  the  use  of  certain  tools  as  a  distinctive 
characteristic  of  the  trade.  In  the  erection  of  the  Wash- 
ington monument  at  Washington  in  1883  a  dispute  occurred 
between  the  Granite  Cutters  and  the  Stone  Cutters  because 
the  engineer  in  charge  of  the  work  transferred  some  of  the 
granite  cutters  to  marble  cutting.  The  Stone  Cutters 
claimed  that  the  Granite  Cutters  had  no  right  to  use  the 
mallet,  but  that  they  themselves  had  every  right  to  use  the 
bush-hammer.^^  In  every  constitution  and  every  statement 
of  jurisdiction  claims  the  Granite  Cutters  demand  all  cutting 
and  carving  of  stone  in  which  granite  cutters'  tools  are 
used.  In  the  constitution  of  1905  an  expansion  of  claims  is 
shown  when  jurisdiction  is  asserted  not  only  over  all  work 
in  which  granite  cutting  tools  are  used,  but  also  over  granite 
cutting  machines  "  and  the  making  up,  sharpening  or  dress- 
ing said  tools  either  by  hand  or  machine."'*®     During  1910 

^3  Stone  Cutters*  Journal,  August,  1897,  P-  9- 
^*Ibid.,  March,  1901,  p.  9. 
85  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  October,  1883,  p.  5. 
8^  Constitution,  1905,  sec.  3. 


DEMARCATION   DISPUTES  II 9 

Secretary  Duncan  called  attention  to  the  numerous  disputes 
which  were  occurring  between  the  Granite  Cutters'  Union 
and  the  Pavers  and  Rammers  over  the  question  of  cutting 
and  trimming  stone  for  street  work.  These  disputes  oc- 
curred especially  in  New  York  and  San  Francisco,  but 
everywhere  the  claim  of  the  Granite  Cutters  was  based  on 
the  same  ground,  that  is,  the  exclusive  right  to  cut  all  stone, 
whether  used  for  paving  or  building,  upon  which  granite 
cutters'  tools  are  used.*^^ 

The  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers,  because  of  contentions  with 
the  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  decided  to  omit  the  shears  or 
snips  from  the  emblems  of  their  craft,  and  to  claim  only 
such  metal  work  in  connection  with  slate  and  tile  roofing 
as  required  no  soldering.^^  The  practice  of  the  Stone  Cut- 
ters is  similar  to  that  of  the  Granite  Cutters  except  that  the 
former  claim  control  over  tools  used  for  cutting  soft  stone, 
whereas  the  latter's  jurisdiction  applies  to  hard  stone.  The 
mallet,  mash  hammer,  and  chisel  are  regarded  as  peculiarly 
stone  cutters'  tools,  while  the  use  of  the  stone  pick  is  dis- 
couraged, as  it  is  not  regarded  as  belonging  to  stone  cutters. 

Secretary  Dobson  of  the  Bricklayers  and  Masons,  in 
commenting  on  a  long  jurisdictional  dispute  between  the 
Stone  Masons  and  the  Granite  Cutters  in  Philadelphia,  said 
that  the  controversy  was  waged  not  only  over  the  right  to 
do  certain  work,  but  also  over  the  right  to  use  certain  tools. 
This  latter  demand  he  considered  to  be  carrying  things  too 
far,  and  said  that  as  long  as  each  man  observed  the  proper 
demarcation  of  his  trade  there  ought  to  be  no  restriction  as 
to  the  tools  he  wished  to  use.^^  A  similar  dispute  occurred 
in  Boston  in  1904  between  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  and 
the  Plumbers  because  members  of  the  latter  association  were 
using  sheet  metal  workers'  tools  in  their  work.^^ 

s''  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  October,  1910,  p.  4. 

58  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  10. 

58  Annual  Report,  December,  1905,  p.  335. 

^^  Proceedings,  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  1904,  p.  236. 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Cost  of  Jurisdictional  Disputes 

Having  noticed  the  characteristics  and  the  causes  of  juris- 
dictional disputes,  we  shall  now  seek  to  obtain  some  ade- 
quate conception  of  the  evil  results  of  these  controversies. 
The  actual  money  cost  of  jurisdictional  conflicts,  consider- 
able as  it  is,  is  almost  insignificant  as  compared  with  the 
less  ponderable  but  none  the  less  real  costs  to  the  unions 
and  the  public.  The  treatment  divides  itself  conveniently 
into  (i)  a  general  consideration  of  the  evils  involved,  and 
(2)  an  examination  of  the  specific  costs  (a)  to  the  unions 
themselves,  (b)  to  the  employer,  and  (c)  to  society. 

To  one  who  studies  the  history  of  trade-union  develop- 
ment or  observes  the  present  activities  of  the  unions,  one  of 
the  most  obtrusive  facts  is  the  frequent  and  almost  inter- 
minable disputes  between  different  organizations  or  between 
different  branches  of  the  same  organization  over  the  ques- 
tion of  jurisdiction  in  one  form  or  another.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  records  for  the  past  twenty  years  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor,  into  which  as  a  sort  of  melting 
pot  the  contending  parties  pour  their  quarrels  with  the  hope 
that,  by  the  addition  of  the  elements  of  conference  and 
agreement,  peace  will  result,  shows  the  great  frequency  and 
bitterness  of  these  disputes  as  well  as  the  necessity  for  over- 
coming them  if  labor  is  to  attain  really  effective  com- 
bination. 

As  was  pointed  out  earlier  in  this  study,  conflicts  over 
jurisdiction  may  be  expected  to  arise  chiefly  when  labor 
organizations  are  numerous,  when  trades  are  much  sub- 
divided, and  when  changes  in  materials  and  methods  are 
occurring  rapidly.  We  expect,  therefore,  to  find  in  the 
building  trades  of  the  present  day,  where  these  conditions 
are  present  in  the  greatest  degree,  numerous  and  bitter  con- 

120 


THE  COST  OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  121 

flicts.  But  such  controversies  are  not  limited  to  recent 
years^  or  to  the  building  trades.  Sidney  and  Beatrice 
Webb  include  all  English  organized  labor  when  they  say, 
"  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  to  competition  between 
overlapping  unions  is  to  be  attributed  nine-tenths  of  the 
ineffectiveness  of  the  Trade  Union  World/'^ 

The  convention  proceedings  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  each  year  contain  extensive  references  by  the 
president  or  the  executive  council  to  the  prevalence  of  juris- 
dictional disputes.  In  his  report  to  the  convention  in  1903, 
for  instance,  President  Gompers  called  attention  to  the 
grave  dangers  which  confronted  the  organization  by  reason 
of  the  many  jurisdictional  disputes.  Many  efforts,  he  said, 
had  been  made  to  settle  them  by  arbitration  and  agreement, 
but  the  unions  frequently  refused  to  accept  the  awards  of 
an  arbitrator,  and  insisted  on  their  own  narrow  interpreta- 
tion of  jurisdiction.  He  pointed  out  that  during  the  year 
there  were  requests  from  unions  for  the  revocation  of  no 
less  than  thirty  charters  of  international  unions.  Some 
unions  which  had  no  jurisdiction  troubles  had  deliberately 
put  themselves  in  the  way  of  them  by  extending  their  claims 
to  jurisdiction  for  no  better  reason  than  that  other  organiza- 
tions had  extended  theirs.^  At  the  same  convention  the 
executive  council  of  the  Federation  reported  as  follows: 
"  The  Executive  Council  regrets  to  state  that  much  of  its 
time  has  been  unavoidably  taken  up  with  the  settlement  or 

1  In  some  of  our  earliest  records  of  industry  are  found  these  dis- 
putes as  to  demarcation  of  trades.  Thus,  "the  quarrels  raged  so 
fiercely  between  the  London  cordwainers  and  the  'cobblers  from 
beyond  sea*  that  the  King  in  1395  commanded  John  Fresshe  .  .  . 
'that  it  should  be  determined  what  of  right  should  belong  to  one 
party  and  the  other.'"  It  was  then  decided  "that  no  person  who 
meddles  with  old  shoes,  shall  meddle  with  new  shoes  to  sell."  This 
did  not  settle  the  matter,  however,  so  that  it  was  followed  a  few 
years  later  by  an  order  apportioning  the  work,  and  giving  to  the 
cobbler  "  the  clouting  of  old  boots  and  old  shoes  with  new  leather 
upon  the  old  soles,  before  or  behind"  (Webb,  vol.  ii,  p.  511). 

2  Vol.  i,  p.  121. 

3  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  18. 


122     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

attempted  settlement  of  jurisdiction  disputes.  Despite  the 
fact  that  your  body  in  convention  assembled  has  repeatedly 
declared  for  peace  between  the  unions,  and  has  advocated 
the  submission  of  all  matters  in  dispute  to  the  arbitrament 
of  third  parties,  the  jurisdictional  disputes  seem  to  grow  in 
number  and  in  intensity  .  .  .  The  Executive  Council  feels 
called  upon  to  issue  to  the  unions  composing  this  body  a 
solemn  note  of  warning  as  to  the  dangers  which  lie  in  the 
continuance  of  jurisdiction  disputes.  Many  of  the  unions 
appear  to  be  more  engrossed  in  the  problem  of  securing 
new  adherents  from  unions  already  existing,  or  to  extend 
the  work  of  their  members  at  the  expense  of  other  organiza- 
tions, than  they  are  in  resisting  the  aggressions  of  em- 
ployers, or  securing  higher  wages,  shorter  hours,  and  better 
conditions  of  work."* 

In  spite  of  the  exhortations  of  President  Gompers  and 
the  warnings  of  the  executive  council,  disputes  continued 
to  arise  with  unabated  frequency.  In  1908,  during  the 
eleven  days  in  which  the  convention  of  the  Federation  was 
in  session,  there  were  nineteen  cases  of  jurisdictional  dis- 
putes  under  consideration.^     To   each  of   these   disputes 

*  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  "jd.  Among  the  conflicts  considered  by  the 
executive  council  in  this  one  year  were:  dual  unions  among  the 
Sheet  Metal  Workers;  Team  Drivers  v.  Teamsters;  Iron  Molders 
V.  Coremakers;  dual  unions  among  the  Upholsterers;  Metal  Me- 
chanics V.  Plumbers;  Ladies  Garment  Workers  v.  Laundry  Work- 
ers; Laundry  Workers  v.  United  Garment  Workers;  Brewery 
Workers  v.  Engineers  and  Firemen ;  Sheet  Metal  Workers  v.  Paint- 
ers; United  Brotherhood  v.  Amalgamated  Carpenters;  Blacksmiths 
V.  Alhed  Metal  Mechanics;  Plumbers  v.  Steamfitters;  Metal  Me- 
chanics V.  Metal  Workers  and  Machinists;  Carpenters  v.  Wood- 
workers; Brewery  Workers  v.  Teamsters;  Longshoremen  v.  Sea- 
men; Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers  v.  Carpenters;  Silk  Workers 
v.  Textile  Workers;  Bakers  v.  Teamsters  and  v.  Retail  Clerks; 
Teamsters  v.  Brotherhood  of  Railway  Expressmen;  United  Mineral 
Mine  Workers  v.  National  Association  of  Blast  Furnace  Workers 
and  Smelters;  Railroad  Telegraphers  v.  Street  and  Electric  Railway 
Employees;  and  Blacksmiths  v.  United  Mine  Workers  (Proceed- 
ings, 1903,  p.  76  ff.). 

*^  Proceedings,  1908,  passim. 


THE   COST  OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 23 

there  were  at  least  two  parties.  This  makes  the  number  of 
unions  involved  at  least  thirty-eight,  and  when  one  further 
thinks  of  the  number  of  members  in  these  thirty-eight 
unions,  some  idea  will  be  afforded  of  the  extent  to  which 
the  labor  world  is  disrupted  and  agitated  by  such  disputes. 
In  addition,  it  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  jurisdiction 
disputes  considered  by  the  convention  or  by  the  executive 
council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  do  not  repre- 
sent more  than  a  fractional  part  of  sudh  difficulties,  for 
only  those  disputes  which  have  attained  the  dignity  of 
national  importance — that  is,  of  being  discussed  by  the 
national  officials  of  the  two  contending  unions — are  con- 
sidered by  the  Federation.  Besides  these  there  are  almost 
countless  controversies  over  jurisdiction.  Each  national 
union  has  from  a  dozen  to  several  hundred  local  unions 
under  its  authority;  each  one  of  these  thousands  of  sub- 
ordinate unions  is  likely  at  some  time  to  have  its  trade  in- 
fringed upon  by  a  branch  of  another  national  union,  and 
these  disputes  may  be  and  frequently  are  settled  locally  and 
so  do  not  become  an  issue  between  the  national  unions. 
Moreover,  there  are  many  jurisdictional  disputes  between 
branches  of  the  same  national  union  which  are  settled  with- 
out recourse  to  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  The 
national  unions  also  ordinarily  dispose  of  local  dual  unions 
without  recourse  to  the  Federation.® 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  relieved  of  some 
of  the  burden  involved  in  the  consideration  of  jurisdictional 
disputes  by  the  formation  in  1908  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department,  to  which  all  matters  affecting  particularly  the 
building  trades  are  referred.  Since,  as  has  been  noted,  the 
building  trades  offer  the  most  fertile  field  for  jurisdiction 

6  The  president  of  the  Lathers,  in  an  address  to  the  convention  of 
that  union  in  1908,  called  attention  to  the  frequency  and  gravity  of 
jurisdictional  disputes  in  which  the  union  was  involved,  and  said, 
"  I  have  appeared  before  different  communities  at  least  twenty  times 
during  the  past  year  to  fight  off  encroachments  upon  our  jurisdic- 
tion claims"  (Proceedings,  1908,  p.  6). 


124     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

difficulties,  the  establishment  of  the  Department  has  re~ 
suited  in  the  transfer  of  the  greater  part  of  these  disputes 
to  it,  though  the  Federation  as  a  kind  of  appellate  court  still 
passes  upon  many  contests  in  which  building-trades  unions 
are  participants.  The  records  of  the  Building  Trades  De- 
partment show  no  diminution  in  the  number  of  jurisdic- 
tional disputes.  The  delegates  sent  by  the  Plumbers  to  the 
convention  of  the  Department  in  1909  reported  that  the 
time  of  the  convention  was  taken  up  mainly  by  jurisdictional 
controversies,  and  they  added,  "  The  situation  is  getting  to 
be  a  critical  one  throughout  the  entire  country  and  with  all 
the  building  trades. "'^  Some  twenty  jurisdictional  disputes 
were  considered  by  the  convention  of  1910,^  and  in  1912 
eighteen  disputes  were  referred  to  committees.^  In  addi- 
tion, a  number  of  disagreements  which  had  developed  from 
jurisdictional  difficulties  were  discussed. 

Besides  their  great  number,  there  is  another  aspect  of 
jurisdictional  disputes  which  must  be  considered  in  any  ap- 
praisal of  the  cost  of  such  conflicts.  This  is  the  bitterness, 
hostility,  and  enmity  which  they  arouse  between  the  par- 
ticipants. Even  when  the  dispute  is  only  of  short  duration 
there  is  certain  to  be  some  bitterness  left  and  some  soreness 
felt,  and  in  those  cases  where  the  quarrel  extends  over  a 
number  of  years,  as  in  the  jurisdictional  conflicts  between 
the  Plumbers  and  the  Steam  Fitters  and  between  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers, 
the  members  of  one  union  are  likely  to  come  to  look  upon 
the  members  of  the  other  organization  as  their  natural 
enemies.  At  the  convention  of  1902  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  President  Gompers  said :  "  Beyond 
doubt  the  greatest  problem,  the  danger  which  above  all 
others  threatens  not  only  the  success,  but  the  very  existence 
of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  is  the  question  of 

7  Plumbers,  Gas  and  Steam  Fitters'  Official  Journal,  November, 
1909,  p.  4. 

8  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1910. 
^  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912. 


THE   COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  25 

jurisdiction.  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  unless  our  affiliated 
national  and  international  unions  radically  and  soon  change 
their  course,  we  shall  at  no  distant  day  be  in  the  midst  of 
an  internecine  contest  unparalleled  in  any  era  of  the  in- 
dustrial world,  aye,  not  even  when  workmen  of  different 
trades  were  arrayed  against  each  other,  behind  barricades  in 
the  streets  over  the  question  of  trade  against  trade.  I 
submit  that  it  is  untenable  and  intolerable  for  an  organiza- 
tion to  attempt  to  ride  rough  shod  over  and  trample  under 
foot  the  rights  and  jurisdiction  of  a  trade,  .  .  .  which  is 
already  covered  by  an  existing  organization."^"  The  bitter- 
ness engendered  by  the  long  controversy  between  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  Amalgamated  Wood- 
workers was  so  great  that  these  unions  declared  firms 
"  unfair  "  which  employed  members  of  the  opposing  union, 
even  when  full  union  conditions  of  employment  prevailed.^^ 

From  this  depressing  general  view  of  the  results  of  juris- 
dictional disputes^^  let  us  turn  to  a  consideration  of  the 
cost  specifically  chargeable  to  such  disputes,  first  of  all  to 
the  unions  themselves.  These  costs  may  be  grouped  under 
three  headings:  (a)  loss  of  money,  (b)  impairment  of 
organization,  and  (c)  the  creation  of  hostile  public  opinion. 

It  will  of  course  be  impossible  to  give  the  actual  monetary 
loss  sustained  by  the  various  unions  by  reason  of  jurisdic- 
tional disputes,  since  this  loss  is  composed  of  many  different 
elements,  such  as  loss  of  wages,  strike  benefits,  and  cost  of 

10  The  Steam  Fitter,  April,  1903,  p.  2. 

11  Proceedings,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  1906,  p.  "JZ- 

"  President  Gompers,  in  his  report  to  the  convention  of  1905  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  managed  to  find  a  slight  element 
of  advantage  in  the  existence  of  jurisdictional  disputes.  He  said: 
"  None  will  dispute  the  fact  that  with  you  I  deeply  deplore  the  juris- 
dictional controversies,  and  particularly  when  they  assume  an  acute 
and  often  bitter  antagonistic  attitude;  but  that  they  have  developed 
a  high  order  of  intelligence  in  discussion  among  our  unionists,  keen 
perception  in  industrial  jurisprudence,  is  a  fact  which  all  observers 
must  admit.  That  these  acquirements  and  attainments  will  be  of 
vast  advantage  in  the  administration  and  judgment  of  industrial 
affairs,  no  thinker  dare  gainsay"  (Proceedings,  1905,  p.  23). 


126     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

agents  of  the  union.  Not  only  is  money  spent  in  maintain- 
ing the  organization  during  the  trouble,  but  also  in  building 
it  up  again  after  the  conflict  is  over.  The  greater  number 
of  such  expenditures  are  undifferentiated  in  the  accounts  of 
the  union,  and  indeed  are  impossible  of  any  precise  separate 
measurement,  but  from  such  stray  facts  and  official  com- 
ments as  we  have,  it  is  clear  that  the  amount  of  money 
spent  by  the  building-trades  unions  upon  jurisdictional  con- 
troversies, directly  and  indirectly,  represents  one  of  the 
largest  items  in  their  budgets.  For  instance,  the  expense 
must  have  been  very  heavy  not  only  to  the  Steam  Fitters 
but  to  other  unions  as  well  when  the  Steam  Fitters  were  on 
strike  during  the  first  six  or  seven  months  of  19 lo  to  gain 
control  of  the  pipe-fitting  industry  in  New  York.^^  A  con- 
sciousness of  the  heavy  cost  of  jurisdictional  difficulties  is 
shown  in  the  following  statement  of  President  Short,  made 
at  the  session  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  in  191 1: 
"The  jurisdictional  disputes  which  have  become  the  bane 
of  our  lives  must  end,  and  the  only  way  this  enormous  loss 
of  money  to  our  membership  can  be  ended  is  by  loyalty  to 
this  Department."^*  The  president  of  the  Hod  Carriers* 
and  Building  Laborers'  Union  said  in  1908  that  their  local 
union  in  Chicago  had  recently  been  "  drawn  into  one  of 
those  cursed  jurisdictional  fights  between  the  Carpenters 
and  the  Electricians,  which  put  five  hundred  of  our  men 
upon  the  street  for  five  weeks  .  .  .  Instead  of  wasting  our 
strength,  time  and  money  in  fighting  one  another,  we  should 
devote  it  to  organizing  the  unorganized."^^ 

A  more  definite  statement  of  the  money  cost  to  the  unions 
is  found  in  the  report  of  the  United  Association  of  Plumbers 
to  the  Building  Trades  Department  that  in  Toronto  their 
members  had  been  locked  out  by  the  employers  on  account 

13  Interview,  Business  Agent  Moore  of  the  Baltimore  Plumbers, 
November  8,  1910. 
1*  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  191 1,  P-  35- 
Inofficial  Journal   [Hod   Carriers  and  Building  Laborers],  Au- 
gust, 1907,  p.  3. 


THE   COST  OF  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  12/ 

of  the  dispute  with  the  Steam  Fitters,  and  that  the  union 
had  spent  about  fifty- three  thousand  dollars  in  the  fight.  In 
spite  of  this,  the  Steam  Fitters  had  established  there  a  local 
union  composed  mainly  of  members  of  the  Plumbers'  As- 
sociation who  were  in  arrears  with  their  dues.^^  The 
Elevator  Constructors  had  a  serious  and  costly  dispute  with 
the  Machinists  in  Chicago  over  the  installation  of  pumps 
connected  with  hydraulic  elevators.  A  strike  resulted  which 
lasted  for  more  than  two  years,  during  which  most  of  the 
elevator  men  in  the  city  were  out  of  work,  while  members 
of  the  Machinists  and  other  unions  supplied  their  places 
with  the  Otis  Elevator  Company.  Finally,  on  May  i,  1911, 
the  Elevator  Constructors  as  the  result  of  an  agreement 
went  back  to  work,  and  the  Machinists  were  displaced. 
From  that  time  on,  the  Elevator  Constructors  were  treated 
as  "  scabs  "  by  the  Machinists ;  they  were  beaten  and  even 
killed,  so  that  the  union  was  forced  to  hire  detectives  to 
protect  its  members  and  to  convict  the  "  sluggers."  This 
difficulty  alone  cost  the  union  thousands  of  dollars.^^  The 
losses  in  wages  due  to  disputes  are  not  often  estimated  by 
trade-union  officials,  but  we  occasionally  come  across  such 
estimates.  For  instance,  in  1910  the  secretary  of  the  Brick- 
layers said:  "Our  disputes  with  the  Operative  Plasterers* 
Union  during  the  past  year  have  taken  thousands  of  dollars 
out  of  our  International  treasury  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
tecting our  interests.  The  loss  in  wages  to  our  own  mem- 
bers has  amounted  to  at  least  $300,000.  The  losses  to  our 
employers  have  been  up  in  the  thousands  also.  ...  In 
several  instances  the  writ  of  injunction  has  been  brought 
into  play  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  unions  involved  in 
trade  disputes  and  unless  the  unions  .   .   .  provide  some 

16  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1908,  p.  51. 

17  Interview,  General  Secretary  Young  of  the  Elevator  Construct- 
ors, June  29,  191 1.  Mr.  Young  estimates  that  the  Elevator  Con- 
structors, with  about  2000  members,  have  spent  in  less  than  ten 
years  $75,000  in  defending  themselves  and  their  trade  from  the 
aggressions  of  other  trade  unions. 


128     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

means  of  eliminating  jurisdictional  warfare,  it  is  only  a 
question  of  time  when  the  legislatures  of  our  country  will 
be  called  upon  to  pass  laws  that  will  penalize  labor  unionists 
who  indulge  in  such  struggles."^^ 

In  the  examples  which  have  been  cited  the  attempt  was 
made  to  give  some  indication  of  the  money  cost  in  each 
case  to  only  one  of  the  parties  engaged  in  the  quarrel.  It 
is  obvious  that  the  total  cost  must  be  much  greater  than 
this,  since  there  is  always  at  least  one  other  union  directly 
connected  with  the  dispute,  which  must  likewise  expend  a 
large  sum  of  money  to  preserve  what  it  regards  as  its  rights. 
In  addition  many  unions,  whose  wage  loss  must  be  taken 
into  account,  may  be  forced  out  on  strike  in  sympathy  with 
one  or  the  other  of  the  principals. 

Furthermore,  there  is  a  large  though  indeterminable  cost 
to  all  organized  labor  in  the  increasing  difficulty  of  organiza- 
tion and  the  loss  in  solidarity  growing  out  of  these  conflicts. 
These  evil  results,  which  are  less  susceptible  to  measure- 
ment, have  been  grouped  under  the  head  of  weakness  in 
organization.  As  was  said  before,  any  contest  between  two 
or  more  unions  over  the  possession  of  a  trade  or  a  terri- 
tory, however  brief  its  duration,  is  certain  to  cause  some 
enmity  and  discord  between  the  members  of  the  unions,  and 
when  the  dispute  is  prolonged  this  lack  of  unity  and 
harmony  is  much  accentuated.  Members  of  rival  unions, 
instead  of  feeling  that  sympathy  for  each  other  which  must 
underlie  all  cooperation,  hear  with  rejoicing  the  news  that 
disaster  has  overtaken  their  opponents,  and  in  many  cases 
they  contribute  to  this  outcome  in  every  possible  manner. 
The  employer  of  the  members  of  one  organization  is  ap- 
proached by  members  of  the  rival  union  who  offer  to  work 
for  a  lower  wage  scale  than  he  is  paying,^®  or  they  may 

18  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  February,  191 1,  p.  i. 

19 "  Collective  bargaining  becomes  impracticable  when  different 
societies  are  proposing  new  regulations  on  overtime  inconsistent 
with  each  other,  and  when  rival  organizations,  each  claiming  to  rep- 
resent the  same  section  of  the  trade,  are  putting  forward  divergent 


THE  COST  OF  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  29 

boycott  his  product  and  put  him  on  the  "unfair"  list,  or 
they  may  persuade  other  unions  to  refuse  to  work  for  him 
as  long  as  he  employs  their  opponents.  They  may  send 
their  agents  to  disrupt  local  unions  affiliated  with  the  rival 
association  and  to  procure  their  reaffiliation  with  their  own 
association,  and  may  finally  reach  the  lowest  point  of  union 
degradation  by  "  scabbing  "  on  their  rival  union  when  it  is 
engaged  in  a  strike  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  higher 
wages  or  improved  working  conditions.  As  the  result  of 
jurisdictional  controversies,  local  unions  frequently  refuse 
obedience  to  their  national  officers,  local  building  trades 
councils  seat  and  unseat  delegates  regardless  of  the  com- 
mands of  the  national  Building  Trades  Department,  and  the 
city  federations  defy  the  American  Federation  of  Labor. 
This  condition  of  anarchy,  due  to  jurisdictional  quarrels, 
is  one  of  the  greatest  weaknesses  and  gravest  dangers  in  the 
labor  movement. 

Incidents  showing  the  disorganizing  influence  of  juris- 
dictional disputes  are  very  numerous,  and  only  a  few  of 
the  more  prominent  will  be  sketched  here.  During  1912 
the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  which  had  been 
suspended  from  the  Building  Trades  Department  for  its 
refusal  to  obey  the  decision  of  the  Department  in  regard  to 
its  dispute  with  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  and  had  just  been 
reinstated,  was  embroiled  again  in  New  York.  The  Sheet 
Metal  Workers  were  locked  out  by  their  employers,  and  it 
was  charged  that  the  Carpenters  were  taking  their  places. 
President  Short  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  said: 
"  Charges  are  made  .  .  .  that  the  Carpenters  were  helping 
the  contractors  to  break  up  the  local  union  of  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers;  even  going  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  Car- 
penters were  erecting  metal  cornice  work.''^^  Whether  or 
not  these  charges  were  true,  the  result  was  that  the  local 
union  of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  was  destroyed. 

claims  as  to  the  methods  and  rate  of  remuneration"   (Webb,  vol. 
i,  p.  131). 
20  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912,  p.  27. 


130     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

After  the  suspension  of  the  Steam  Fitters  from  the  Build- 
ing Trades  Department  and  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  a  multitude  of  difficulties  occurred.  In  Boston,  in 
compliance  with  the  order  of  the  Building  Trades  Depart- 
ment and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  that  the  Steam 
Fitters  should  not  be  recognized  as  a  legitimate  organiza- 
tion, the  Building  Trades  Council  notified  the  George  A. 
Fuller  Company,  which  was  erecting  the  Copley  Plaza 
Hotel  and  several  other  buildings,  that  the  steam  fitters  who 
held  membership  with  the  Plumbers  must  be  employed  in- 
stead of  members  of  the  International  Association  of  Steam 
Fitters,  and  a  strike  of  the  building  trades  was  called  to 
enforce  this  demand.  The  Fuller  Company  agreed,  and  put 
to  work  the  steam  fitters  belonging  to  the  Plumbers'  Asso- 
ciation. Some  of  the  most  important  building-trades 
unions — the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  the  Opera- 
tive Plasterers,  the  Bricklayers,  and  the  Plasterers'  Labor- 
ers— were  not  affiliated  with  the  Boston  Building  Trades 
Council;  these  organizations  now  demanded  the  discharge 
of  the  steam  fitters  belonging  to  the  Plumbers,  and  struck 
to  enforce  their  demand.  Secretary  Spencer  of  the  Build- 
ing Trades  Department  was  called  to  Boston,  and  after  a 
number  of  conferences  all  the  trades  decided  to  return  to 
work  provided  no  steam  fitters  whatever  were  employed. 

This  condition  of  affairs  had  lasted  for  only  a  short  time 
when  the  members  of  the  Steam  Fitters'  Association  were 
again  put  to  work,  and  once  more  all  the  unions  affiliated 
with  the  Building  Trades  Council  were  ordered  to  strike. 
This  strike  involved  about  five  hundred  men.  The  Struc- 
tural Iron  Workers,  who  were  members  of  the  Council,  at 
first  refused  to  strike  and  declared  their  intention  to  remain 
neutral,  but  a  few  days  later  they  withdrew  their  men  from 
the  buildings  which  the  Fuller  Company  was  erecting. 
However,  the  unions  outside  of  the  Building  Trades  Council 
continued  the  work,  and  their  numbers  were  increased  by 
tile  layers  brought  from  New  York  who  went  to  work  on 
these  buildings.     In  desperation  the  Boston  Council  asked 


THE   COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I3I 

President  Short  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  and 
President  Ryan  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers  to  come 
immediately  to  the  city  to  help  to  straighten  out  the  diffi- 
culties. A  few  days  later  President  McNulty  of  the  Elec- 
trical Workers  was  requested  to  come  to  hold  his  men  in 
line,  for  they  were  about  to  call  off  their  strike  against  the 
Fuller  Company.  The  company  now  forced  the  fighting, 
and,  together  with  five  subcontractors,  obtained  injunctions 
to  prevent  interference  with  the  trades  working  on  their 
buildings.  In  the  meantime  additional  tile  layers  from 
New  York  went  to  work  on  the  jobs,  and  the  Asbestos 
Workers  withdrew  from  the  Council  and  returned  to  work. 
A  threatened  fine  of  two  hundred  dollars,  however,  brought 
them  back  into  line  with  the  Council. 

A  new  difficulty  now  arose.  The  Painters'  local  union, 
before  the  calling  of  the  general  strike  against  the  Fuller 
Company,  had  demanded  higher  wages  from  Marshall,  a 
painting  contractor.  Marshall,  in  addition  to  his  other 
work,  also  had  the  contract  for  painting  the  Fuller  build- 
ings, and  when  the  general  strike  was  ordered,  the  Painters 
had  four  men  at  work  on  the  Plaza  building.  These  they 
agreed  to  withdraw  provided  the  Building  Trades  Council 
would  agree  to  make  no  settlement  with  the  Fuller  Company 
unless  Marshall  should  consent  to  the  advance  in  wages. 
Now,  however,  Marshall,  at  the  instance  of  the  Fuller  Com- 
pany, agreed  to  accede  to  the  Painters'  demands,  and,  defy- 
ing the  Building  Trades  Council,  the  Painters  went  back  to 
work.  For  this  they  were  fined  five  hundred  dollars  by 
the  Council,  but  they  continued  at  work.  A  number  of  the 
Asbestos  Workers  also  returned  to  work  in  defiance  of  the 
orders  of  their  organization. 

President  Gompers  was  asked  to  notify  the  Central  Labor 
Union  of  Boston  that  the  local  union  of  the  International 
Association  of  Steam  Fitters  was  not  entitled  to  a  seat  in 
that  body,  and  he  was  requested  to  take  charge  of  the 
situation,  either  personally  or  by  representative.  It  was 
hoped  that  a  meeting  of  all  of  the  officers  of  the  building- 


132     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

trades  unions  might  solve  the  problems  confronting  the 
trade.  In  the  meantime,  the  local  union  of  the  Bridge  and 
Structural  Iron  Workers  withdrew  from  the  Building 
Trades  Council.  More  tile  layers  and  some  sheet  metal 
workers  were  brought  from  New  York;  the  Electrical 
Workers  returned  to  work,  and  shortly  afterwards  with- 
drew from  the  Council.  A  conference  attended  by  Presi- 
dent Short  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  was  finally 
held.  A  reorganization  of  the  local  council  was  decided 
upon,  and,  while  all  the  other  trades  were  merely  notified 
that  such  a  reorganization  would  take  place,  the  Carpenters 
were  given  a  special  invitation  to  participate.  Unmoved  by 
this  tribute  to  their  importance,  the  Carpenters  replied  that 
when  the  International  Association  of  Steam  Fitters  and 
the  Bricklayers  were  seated  in  the  Council  they  would  con- 
sider reaffiliation.  The  Plasterers  also  decided  to  have  no 
part  in  the  new  council.  Of  those  unions  which  did  attend 
the  meeting,  the  Painters,  the  Iron  Workers,  and  the  Elec- 
trical Workers  refused  to  strike  to  force  the  employment  of 
the  steam  fitters  enrolled  in  the  Plumbers'  union.^^ 

The  disorganizing  effect  of  jurisdictional  disputes  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  downfall  of  the  New  York  Board  of 
Delegates.^^  The  dispute  which  wrecked  the  Board  was 
one  of  dual  unionism.  The  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters 
demanded  the  dissolution  of  the  New  York  branch  of  the 
Amalgamated  Society  of  Carpenters;  upon  the  refusal  of 
the  Board  of  Delegates  to  require  this,  the  Brotherhood 
of  Carpenters  withdrew  from  the  Board,  and  its  members 
struck  against  every  builder  who  refused  to  employ  their 
men  exclusively.  The  Board  took  the  side  of  the  Amalga- 
mated Society  of  Carpenters,  and  the  United  Brotherhood 
then  decided  to  fight  the  Board.  Accordingly  ten  thousand 
carpenters  struck,  tying  up  a  large  part  of  the  work  in  the 
city.  Taking  advantage  of  the  situation  and  seeking  to 
control  the  whole  building  industry,  the  building-material 

21  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912,  p.  32  ff. 

22  Commons,  p.  415. 


THE   COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  33 

drivers,  with  the  support  of  the  Board,  struck  to  obtain 
control  over  the  supply  of  building  material.  To  meet  this 
attack  the  association  of  dealers  in  building  material  shut 
down  every  yard  and  plant  in  the  city,  thus  bringing  to  a 
stop  the  supply  of  building  material  and  throwing  out  of 
work  seventy  thousand  men  for  four  weeks.  A  division  in 
the  Board  of  Delegates  resulted.  The  representatives  of 
the  unions  of  skilled  trades  in  the  Board,  who  were  in  a 
majority,  voted  to  revoke  the  endorsement  of  the  Team- 
sters, and  the  material  yards  were  thrown  open.  But  dur- 
ing this  interval  the  builders  had  formed  one  strong  central 
association,  and  they  now  declared  a  lock-out.  After  a 
week's  idleness,  they  suggested  to  the  unions  a  plan  of 
arbitration  which  was  finally  adopted.^^ 

If  we  turn  our  attention  as  far  west  as  Denver,  we  find 
during  1909  another  impressive  illustration  of  the  havoc 
wrought  by  jurisdictional  controversies.  Here  again  the 
trouble  started  between  the  two  unions  of  carpenters.  A 
large  part  of  the  Denver  local  branch  of  the  Amalgamated 
Society  of  Carpenters  joined  the  local  union  of  the  Brother- 
hood, and  the  Amalgamated  Society  was  denied  representa- 
tion in  the  Denver  Building  Trades  Council.  The  National 
Building  Trades  Department  ordered  that  their  delegation 
be  seated,  but  in  the  meantime  it  had  been  agreed  that  a 
carpenters'  district  council  should  be  formed  from  all  local 
unions  of  carpenters  to  elect  delegates  to  the  Building 
Trades  Council.  This  was  done;  when,  however,  all  the 
delegates  elected  were  found  to  be  members  of  the  United 
Brotherhood,  the  Amalgamated  branch  withdrew  and 
elected  its  own  delegates,  who  were  seated  despite  the 
protests  of  the  local  union  of  the  United  Brotherhood. 
This  union  then  withdrew  from  the  Council. 

In  order  to  drive  them  back  into  line,  the  Council  put  into 

23  "The  unfortunate  struggles  in  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  and 
Kings  .  .  .  during  1903  .  .  .  amounted  almost  to  a  calamity,  and  it 
will  take  years  to  eradicate  the  disastrous  results"  (Proceedings, 
United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  1904,  p.  209). 


134     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

effect  the  card  system,  that  is,  a  regulation  that  no  trade 
affiliated  with  the  Building  Trades  Council  should  be  per- 
mitted to  work  on  a  building  with  any  mechanic  who  did 
not  hold  a  working  card  issued  by  the  Council.  Since  the 
local  union  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  did  not  belong 
to  the  Council,  its  members  did  not  carry  such  cards.  A 
series  of  strikes  against  the  Brotherhood  men  was  inaugu- 
rated which  involved  all  affiliated  organizations  and  caused 
great  loss  and  inconvenience  to  owners  and  builders. 
Finally,  a  general  strike  was  declared  against  the  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters,  and  to  settle  this  the  Building  Trades 
Department  sent  Vice-President  Smith  of  the  Painters  to 
Denver.  A  truce  was  signed  pending  arbitration  of  the 
difficulty,  but  the  arbitration  proceedings  failed.  President 
Kirby  and  Vice-President  McSorley  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department  and  President  McNulty  of  the  Electrical 
Workers  tried  in  vain  to  harmonize  the  factions.  The  spirit 
of  disruption  spread  to  all  the  building-trades  unions,  and 
finally,  months  after  the  beginning  of  the  trouble,  the  execu- 
tive council  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  took  up  the 
matter  and  suggested  a  plan  of  settlement.  This  was  re- 
jected, and  the  officials  of  the  Brotherhood  were  then 
ordered  to  meet  the  officials  of  the  Building  Trades  Depart- 
ment to  show  cause  why  their  union  should  not  be  suspended 
from  the  Department.  The  meeting  was  held  and  a  local 
agreement  at  last  reached.  Commenting  on  this  difficulty, 
President  Kirby  said,  ''  The  result  of  the  fight  has  been  the 
almost  complete  disorganization  of  one  of  the  best  organ- 
ized cities  in  the  United  States,  and  a  condition  created  that 
has  held  us  up  to  ridicule  throughout  the  country."^^ 

The  enmity  engendered  by  jurisdictional  disputes  some- 
times, as  has  already  been  said,  leads  the  members  of  one 
union  to  take  the  places  of  the  members  of  a  rival  associa- 
tion which  is  on  strike.  In  May,  1909,  the  Elevator  Con- 
structors of  Chicago  demanded  an  increase  in  wages,  their 


2*  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  pp.  11,  33  ff. 


THE  COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  35 

principal  employers  being  the  Otis  Elevator  Company. 
This  increase  was  refused,  and  when  they  went  on  strike 
the  company  made  an  agreement  with  the  machinists,  elec- 
trical workers,  steam  fitters'  helpers,  ornamental  iron  work- 
ers, and  building  laborers,  and  parcelled  out  the  work 
formerly  done  by  the  Elevator  Constructors  among  these 
different  trades.  There  was  then  a  long  and  bitter  fight, 
and  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  President  Kirby  the  various 
unions  concerned  refused  to  withdraw  their  men  and  give 
up  the  work.  The  president  of  the  Building  Trades  De- 
partment in  his  report  to  the  convention  said,  "  There  exists 
in  the  city  of  Chicago  an  agreement  signed  by  seven  dif- 
ferent organizations  to  do  the  work  of  an  organization 
whose  members  were  on  strike,"  and  he  characterized  this 
as  "  the  most  damnable  attack  that  ever  came  to  my 
knowledge."^^ 

Chicago  also  furnished  an  illustration  of  the  effect  of 
jurisdictional  disputes  in  leading  to  violence  between 
unions.^®  The  International  Association  of  Steam  Fitters 
having  been  suspended  from  the  Building  Trades  Depart- 
ment, the  Chicago  Building  Trades  Council  in  191 1  decided 
to  aid  the  Plumbers  in  establishing  a  local  branch  of  steam 
fitters.  Trouble  began  immediately.  Two  of  the  trades 
unaffiliated  with  the  local  council  took  the  side  of  the 
Steam  Fitters,  and  several  included  in  the  Council  also 
aided  them  in  every  way  possible.  If  a  contractor  em- 
ployed the  Steam  Fitters  to  do  the  steam  fitting,  the  trades 
loyal  to  the  Council  would  refuse  to  work  for  him ;  if  on  the 
other  hand  he  employed  the  Plumbers,  the  organizations 
friendly  to  the  Steam  Fitters  would  strike.  It  was  thus 
made  impossible  to  have  work  done,  no  matter  what  the 
contractor  or  owner  was  willing  to  do,  and  work  on  a  large 
number  of  buildings  was  at  a  standstill  for  many  months. 
The  feeling  between  the  hostile  unions  was  intensely  bitter. 
It  was  openly  charged  that  thugs  were  hired  by  union  men 

25  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  pp.  12,  71. 

26  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  191 1,  p.  37. 


136     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

to  assault  other  union  men,  and  three  of  the  most  promi- 
nent local  officials  of  the  Plumbers  were  arrested  on  the 
charge  of  conspiracy  to  kill.  A  local  agreement  was  finally 
reached  which  put  an  end  to  this  warfare. 

By  this  evidence,  which  might  be  greatly  extended,  we 
are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  effect  of  jurisdictional 
conflicts  in  producing  weakness  in  the  organization  of  labor 
is  a  far  greater  evil  than  the  mere  waste  of  money  entailed 
by  such  conflicts.  Treasurer  Lennon  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  said  in  his  report  to  the  convention  of 
1903,  "  To  me  the  danger  of  our  movement  lies  in  the 
divisions  existing  in  the  trade  unions  themselves,  and  those 
divisions  are  very  largely  over  the  questions  of  juris- 
diction."^^ 

We  must  now  note  still  another  item  in  the  cost  of  this 
internecine  strife,  that  is,  the  alienation  of  public  sympathy 
from  the  trade  unions.  One  does  not  ordinarily  realize  how 
important  an  element  in  the  success  of  organized  labor  is 
the  sympathy  and  cooperation  of  the  public,  but  if  he  stops 
to  consider  merely  those  cases  which  have  come  under  his 
own  observation  he  will  recall  that  those  strikes  or  other 
labor  movements  which  have  received  the  moral  support  of 
the  community  have  almost  uniformly  been  successful, 
while  those  which  have  lacked  this  support  were  with  few 
exceptions  failures.  The  efforts  made  by  both  employers 
and  unionists  to  enlist  public  sympathy  in  their  cause  furnish 
additional  evidence  that  anything  that  tends  to  alienate 
public  sympathy  is  an  extremely  expensive  indulgence. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  jurisdictional  disputes  provide 
one  of  the  prime  reasons  for  much  of  the  widespread  public 
criticism  of  trade  unionism. 

That  part  of  the  community  unconnected  with  organized 
labor  which  has  been  designated  as  the  public  is  not  suffi- 
ciently well  informed  as  to  the  facts  underlying  jurisdic- 
tional conflicts  to  determine  in  any  given  case  whether  the 

27  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  60. 


THE   COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 3/ 

contest  between  the  unions  is  one  involving  an  important, 
even  at  times  a  vital,  principle  or  whether  it  is  merely  due  to 
inconsiderate  and  selfish  aggression.^^  What  the  uninitiated 
see  is  that  here  are  certain  groups  of  men,  nominally  banded 
together  to  obtain  desirable  conditions  of  employment  and 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  themselves  and  their  fellow-men, 
but  actually  waging  war  upon  each  other  and  causing  incon- 
venience and  financial  loss  to  the  community  and  to  em- 
ployers against  whom  they  have  no  grievance.  Not  only 
the  unions  actually  involved,  but  the  whole  labor  movement 
is  thus  discredited. 

The  opinion  is  often  given  both  in  the  daily  press  and  in 
the  organs  of  the  unions  that  jurisdictional  disputes  and  the 
outrages  not  infrequently  resulting  therefrom  are  respon- 
sible for  much  of  the  opposition  to  the  unions.  In  April, 
1903,  when  the  officers  of  one  of  two  rival  associations  of 
sheet  metal  workers  in  Chicago  were  lured  to  the  rooms  of 
the  other  local  union  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  murder 
them,  all  the  Chicago  newspapers  laid  stress  on  the  injury 
done  to  the  cause  of  unionism.^®  In  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Adjustment,  which  considered  all  the  disputes 
brought  before  the  convention  of  191 1  of  the  Building 
Trades  Department,  it  was  said:  "The  inconvenience  to 
which  we  put  him  [the  employer]  because  of  the  strikes  we 
have  with  each  other  over  our  own  disputes  .  .  .  and 
the  general  disrepute  into  which  we  bring  ourselves,  not 
only  with  the  employers,  but  with  the  public,  appeals  to  us 
as  needing  some  remedy."     One  of  the  delegates  added: 

28  At  the  convention  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  in  1911 
Secretary  Duffy  of  the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  said:  "It 
is  a  shame  when  we  have  good  friendly  owners,  builders  and  archi- 
tects, who  are  willing  to  place  in  their  contracts  a  provision  that 
union  labor  only  must  be  employed,  and  when  the  building  is  only 
half  completed  have  the  workers  go  out  and  strike.  The  public 
does  not  understand  it,  and  it  seems  nobody  understands  it  but  our- 
selves. All  the  public  see  is  that  there  is  a  job  going  up  under  union 
conditions  and  it  is  struck"  (Proceedings,  191 1,  p.  2^^. 

29  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  May,  1903,  p.  94. 


138     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

"  Even  if  we  simply  announce  to  the  public  tomorrow  morn- 
ing that  this  Department  has  taken  a  step  in  the  direction  of 
trying  to  eliminate  strikes  in  which  our  employment  is  not 
involved,  in  which  there  is  no  question  of  hours  of  employ- 
ment, wages  or  conditions  of  employment,  the  mere  declara- 
tion will  more  than  repay  us  for  the  time  and  energy  spent 
on  the  question. "^^ 

The  unions  are  by  no  means  the  only  sufferers  from 
jurisdictional  disputes.  A  heavy  loss  not  infrequently  falls 
on  the  employer  of  the  workmen.  Building  on  a  large  scale 
is  no  longer  done,  as  formerly,  under  the  direction  of  the 
owner  and  the  supervision  of  a  boss  carpenter.  The  owner 
now  obtains  bids  upon  the  specifications  of  his  architect  and 
gives  out  a  single  contract  for  the  whole  work,  the  comple- 
tion of  which  according  'to  specifications  is  guaranteed  by 
the  deposit  of  a  bond  or  other  security.  The  general  con- 
tractor in  turn  sublets  the  various  portions  of  the  work  to 
a  masonry  contractor,  a  painting  contractor,  a  heating  con- 
tractor, an  electrical  contractor,  and  so  forth,  and  secures 
himself  also  by  requiring  the  deposit  of  indemnity  bonds. 
Nearly  all  general  contractors  and  many  subcontractors  are 
required  by  their  agreements  to  have  their  work  finished 
within  a  specified  time  under  penalty  of  a  fine  for  each  day 
beyond  this  time.  On  the  other  hand,  a  bonus  is  fre- 
quently allowed  if  the  work  is  completed  within  a  certain 
minimum  time.  Besides  these  direct  financial  inducements, 
there  are  other  reasons  why  it  is  profitable  for  employers  in 
the  building  trades  to  complete  their  work  as  rapidly  as 
possible.  They  have  large  amounts  of  capital  tied  up  in 
expenditures  for  wages  and  materials,  and  therefore  every 
day  of  delay  on  a  partially  completed  building  represents  a 
considerable  cost  for  interest.  Furthermore,  since  the 
profitableness  of  the  business  does  not  depend  upon  a  single 
contract  but  upon  many  of  them,  the  speed  with  which  each 
building  operation  is  finished  and  another  begun,  or,  in  other 

30  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  191 1,  p.  119. 


THE  COST  OF  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 39 

words,  the  rapidity  of  the  ''turn  over,"  is  a  very  important 
element  in  the  builder's  economy.  On  all  of  these  accounts 
the  delays  caused  by  jurisdictional  disputes  are  sources  of 
loss  to  employers,  against  most  of  which  they  have  no  pro- 
tection. Some  contracts  now  contain  a  clause  providing 
that  delays  due  to  labor  troubles  shall  not  operate  against 
the  contractor.  These  clauses  can,  however,  protect  the 
contractor  only  against  fines,  and  offer  no  protection  against 
the  losses  from  other  sources  noted  above.^^ 

The  gravity  of  the  losses  occasioned  to  contractors  by 
jurisdictional  disputes  is  recognized  by  many  unionists. 
Secretary  Spencer  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  said : 
"Unfortunately  there  has  never  been  an  attempt  exerted 
heretofore  to  adjust  amicably  jurisdiction  claims,  and  the 
policy  of  tying  up  the  building  in  order  to  secure  a  tempo- 
rary gain  over  one  union,  whose  members  have  seen  fit  to 
claim  certain  work  that  may  or  may  not  be  controlled  by 
the  other  union,  has  been  recklessly  followed.  In  this, 
the  contractors  and  owners  involved  have  complained 
bitterly  and  properly  that  such  disputes  should  be  settled 
among  ourselves  without  drawing  them  into  them  to  be 
abused  by  one  or  cursed  by  the  other  disputant.  ...  It 
is  not  properly  within  the  province  of  organized  labor  to 
assume  a  position  that  will  militate  against  the  progress  of 
the  building  business  as  an  industry."^^  j^  announcing  in 
November,  1906,  that  an  agreement  had  been  signed  between 
the  Operative  Plasterers  and  the  Bricklayers,  thus  bringing 
to  an  end  a  conflict  which  had  begun  in  1868,  the  editor  of 
the  Bricklayers  and  Masons'  journal  said :  "  The  agreement 

31  Professor  Commons,  in  his  study  of  the  New  York  Building 
Trades,  comments  on  the  New  York  jurisdictional  disputes  as  fol- 
lows: "Building  construction  was  continually  interrupted,  not  on 
account  of  lockouts,  low  wages,  or  even  employment  of  non-union 
men,  but  on  account  of  fights  between  the  unions.  The  friendly 
employer  who  hired  only  union  men,  along  with  the  unfriendly  em- 
ployer, was  used  as  a  club  to  hit  the  opposing  union.  And  the 
friendly  employer  suffered  more  than  the  other"  (p.  409). 

32  Prospectus  of  the  Building  Trades  Department. 


I40     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

removes  from  the  trade  union  movement  a  jurisdictional 
dispute  that  has  involved  the  building  industry  for  over 
thirty  years,  and  which  has  not  only  been  a  source  of  great 
loss  to  the  journeymen,  financially,  but  has  caused  most 
vexatious  delays  in  building  operations,  and  consequent 
financial  loss  to  employers  and  to  the  building  public,  the 
latter  being  innocent  parties  to  the  trouble  and  perfectly 
helpless  in  providing  a  remedy  for  its  correction."^^ 

A  striking  illustration  of  the  difficulties  encountered  by 
the  employer  when  unionists  fall  out  over  the  question  of 
jurisdiction  is  found  in  the  circumstances  attending  the 
erection  of  the  Marshall  Field  and  Company  building  in 
Chicago  in  1906.  It  was  decided  by  the  builders  to  put  in 
for  cleaning  purposes  a  new  compressed  air  device  which 
included  two  pipes  running  side  by  side,  one  carrying  hot 
and  the  other  cold  water.  These  pipes  ended  in  a  sort  of 
scrubbing-brush,  and  the  compressed  air  drew  the  water 
back  off  the  floor  and  into  a  waste  pipe.  The  Plumbers 
succeeded  in  getting  the  contract  to  install  this  system,  and 
had  got  as  far  as  the  fifth  floor  of  the  seven-story  building 
when  the  Steam  Fitters  struck.  When  it  appeared  that  no 
agreement  could  be  reached,  the  owners,  who  wanted  to 
hurry  the  completion  of  the  building,  announced  that  they 
would  remove  all  cause  for  dispute  by  tearing  out  the  clean- 
ing system.  This  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  Plumbers,  who 
threatened  to  strike.  Meanwhile  the  Steam  Fitters  had  re- 
turned to  work,  but  without  any  helpers,  for  the  local  union 
of  steam  fitters'  helpers  bad  withdrawn  its  members  when 
the  Plumbers  made  their  demands.  Because  the  steam 
fitters  were  not  using  helpers,  the  latter  organization  suc- 
ceeded in  getting  several  other  trades  to  strike  in  sympathy 
with  them,  and  work  on  the  building  was  again  tied  up. 
Finally  the  matter  was  submitted  to  arbitration  and  work 
was  resumed.  By  these  successive  disputes  a  two-million- 
dollar  job  was  delayed  for  days  on  account  of  an  original 

S3  The  Bricklayer  and  Mason,  November,  1906,  p.  i. 


THE   COST  OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I4I 

dispute  over  eight  hundred  dollars  worth  of  work,  although 
the  piping  in  question  was  only  one  one-hundredth  or  one 
per  cent  of  all  the  piping  in  the  building.^* 

A  great  deal  of  trouble  and  loss  was  caused  to  the  build- 
ers of  Chicago  by  the  Machinery  Movers,  who  claimed  the 
exclusive  right  to  deliver  all  machinery  inside  of  buildings 
and  in  many  cases  also  to  set  it  up.  This  organization 
caused  considerable  delay  in  the  construction  of  the  Harris 
Trust  Building,  and  in  a  period  of  less  than  a  year  was  re- 
sponsible for  no  less  than  fifty  separate  strikes  during  which 
the  work  of  employers  was  delayed.^^ 

Secretary  Boyd,  of  the  St.  Louis  builders'  association,  in 
his  monthly  letter  for  March,  191 2,  called  the  attention  of 
employers  to  the  hostile  relations  existing  between  the 
Steam  Fitters  and  the  Plumbers  and  to  the  fact  that  their 
dispute  had  caused  the  suspension  of  work  in  Chicago  for 
many  months  and  had  cost  the  contractors  many  thousands 
of  dollars.  He  said :  "  It  is  truly  unfortunate  that  the  con- 
flict that  seems  imminent  cannot  be  avoided  in  St.  Louis,  as 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  building  business,  which 
shows  signs  of  more  activity  this  season  than  it  has  for 
several  years,  will  be  very  seriously  injured."^^  That  his 
fears  were  justified  was  proved  by  the  developments  of  the 
next  few  months.  In  his  monthly  report  for  May,  19 12, 
Mr.  Boyd  said:  "The  expected  happened  when  the  me- 
chanics on  the  Laclede  Gas  Company's  new  building  went 
on  strike  because  International  Association  Steamfitters 
were  employed  on  the  building.  Since  then  twenty-one 
jobs  have  been  reported  to  this  ofiice  as  having  been  inter- 
fered with  on  the  same  account,  mainly  by  the  plumber  and 
gas  fitter  quitting  work.  .  .  .  The  Hughes  Heating  Com- 
pany, who  have  the  heating  contract,  were  requested  by  the 
general  contractor  to  take  the  steam  fitters  off  the  building 

34  The  Steam  Fitter,  January,  1907,  p.  19. 

35  Report  on  Jurisdictional  Disputes  in  Chicago,  1912. 

8«  Monthly  letter,  March,  1912,  of  Secretary  Boyd  of  the  Building 
Industries  Association  of  St.  Louis. 


142     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

in  order  that  the  other  trades  might  proceed.  The  Hughes 
Company  were  notified  by  the  Steam  Fitters'  Union  that  if 
the  men  were  taken  off,  every  job  they  had  in  or  out  of  the 
city  would  be  struck,  consequently  they  refused  to  comply 
with  the  demand  of  the  general  contractor,  whereupon  the 
police  were  called,  and  they  prevented  the  steam  fitters  from 
going  to  work  on  the  building.  ...  In  view  of  this  situa- 
tion, the  Heat  and  Power  Contractors,  at  their  last  meeting, 
decided  that  every  member  of  this  organization  should 
stand  upon  his  right  to  complete  the  work  for  which  he  had 
contracted,  and  if  interfered  with  by  the  general  contractor 
or  the  owner,  legal  proceedings  should  be  invoked  to  pro- 
tect his  rights." 

Delay  and  annoyance  are  not  the  only  evils  suffered  by 
employers  from  interunion  disputes.  They  are  sometimes 
compelled  to  tear  out  work  that  has  been  placed  by  one 
union  and  to  allow  another  union  claiming  the  work  to 
replace  it.  An  effort  of  this  sort  was  made  in  July,  1905, 
when  all  the  brick  work  on  the  Wanamaker  store  building 
in  Philadelphia  was  stopped  because  certain  concrete  work 
was  being  done  by  laborers.  This  work  in  concrete  was 
under  the  direction  of  the  Roebling  Construction  Company 
and  consisted  merely  in  filling  in  concrete  as  a  backing  for 
terra  cotta  cornices.  The  local  bricklayers  insisted  that  the 
work  which  had  already  been  done  should  be  torn  out,  and 
that  the  Bricklayers  be  paid  for  all  the  time  they  lost  while 
being  on  strike  to  enforce  their  claim.  The  work  of  the 
contractors  was  delayed  for  several  weeks  and  a  number 
of  conferences  were  held,  one  of  which  was  attended  by  the 
architects,  the  various  contractors,  and  the  local  and  national 
representatives  of  the  unions.  The  local  bricklayers  were 
finally  ordered  by  the  national  officers  to  return  to  work, 
and  were  not  allowed  to  collect  from  the  Construction  Com- 
pany for  their  lost  time.^^  Occasionally,  in  order  to  get 
the  work  done,  the  employers  must  pay  one  group  of  men 
for  actually  performing  the  work  and,  at  the  same  time,  pay 

37  Annual  Report  of  Officers,  December,  1905,  p.  134. 


THE   COST   OF   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I43 

another  group  belonging  to  a  different  union  as  if  they  had 
done  it,  thus  paying  twice  for  the  same  piece  of  work.^^ 

We  must  also  take  some  account  of  the  jurisdictional  dis- 
pute from  the  point  of  view  of  society  as  a  whole.  Of 
course,  every  loss  which  falls  upon  the  unions  themselves, 
as  well  as  those  which  fall  upon  the  employers,  is  a  loss 
to  society  inasmuch  as  the  term  "  society "  includes  all 
persons, — unionists,  non-unionists,  and  employers.  But, 
just  as  it  was  found  that  in  certain  cases  jurisdictional  con- 
flicts entail  costs  which  fall  especially  upon  the  unions  or 
the  employers,  so  now  it  is  proposed  to  take  cognizance  of 
that  part  of  the  cost  which  seems  to  fall  pecuHarly  upon 
society  as  a  whole.  Regarded  from  this  point  of  view, 
jurisdictional  disputes  may  be  indicted  on  four  counts: 
(i)  They  waste  both  labor  and  capital;  (2)  they  make  it 
impracticable  in  many  cases  to  use  improved  appliances  and 
cheaper  materials;  (3)  they  are  responsible  for  hesitancy 
in  undertaking  and  increased  expense  in  prosecuting  build- 
ing, to  the  detriment  of  the  building  industry;  (4)  finally, 
where  the  disputes  are  long  continued  they  are  responsible 
for  that  whole  train  of  evil  results  which  follows  upon  idle- 
ness and  poverty. 

It  has  been  said  before  that  the  delay  in  the  construction 
of  buildings  due  to  jurisdictional  contests  results  in  a  con- 
siderable loss  of  interest  on  the  capital  thus  tied  up.     This, 

38  In  Chicago  the  placing  of  opera  chairs  has  been  made  the  sub- 
ject of  dispute  between  the  Carpenters  and  the  Ornamental  Iron 
Setters,  with  the  general  result  that  when  the  chairs  are  placed  on 
wooden  floors,  the  work  is  given  to  the  Carpenters,  and  when  placed 
on  cement  floors,  to  the  Iron  Setters.  However,  in  a  theater  build- 
ing erected  during  191 1  the  Carpenters  were  given  the  work  of 
placing  the  chairs  on  a  cement  floor,  and  the  Ornamental  Iron 
Setters  therefore  struck  the  job.  In  order  to  have  the  building 
ready  on  the  date  specified  in  his  contract,  the  employer  hired  a 
group  of  men  sufficient  to  do  the  work  from  each  union,  and  while 
one  of  these  groups  placed  the  chairs,  the  other  sat  watching,  and 
each  was  paid  its  usual  wage  scale  for  the  time  consumed  (Inter- 
view, Secretary  of  Building  Employers'  Association,  Chicago,  July, 
1912). 


144     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

while  being  directly  a  loss  to  the  owner  or  contractor,  is, 
in  just  as  important  a  sense,  a  loss  to  society,  for  this  capital, 
which  is  thus  rendered  practically  idle,  could  be  used  pro- 
ductively if  the  work  were  completed  as  rapidly  as  possible 
and  the  capital  released  for  other  purposes.  Essentially  the 
same  thing  is  true  in  regard  to  labor.  Each  day's  labor  lost 
by  every  person  involved  in  a  jurisdictional  dispute  is  so 
much  productive  power  lost  by  society,  as  well  as  a  direct 
wage  loss  to  the  persons  thus  rendered  idle. 

One  of  the  most  tangible  results  of  jurisdictional  disputes 
is  that  builders  are  frequently  compelled  to  forego  the  use 
of  improved  appliances,  cheaper  materials,  and  more  effi- 
cient methods  because  they  cannot  get  the  unions  to  agree 
as  to  which  of  them  is  to  use  the  new  device  or  control  the 
new  material.  Thus,  in  Chicago  automatic  stokers  were 
being  built  and  used  until  the  disputes  over  this  work  be- 
tween the  Machinists,  the  Millwrights,  and  the  Structural 
Iron  Workers  became  so  frequent  and  so  bitter  that  the  con- 
struction was  either  delayed  or  abandoned.^^  It  will  be  re- 
called that  in  the  construction  of  the  Marshall  Field  and 
Company  building,  referred  to  previously,  it  was  proposed 
as  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  to  tear  out  the  vacuum  clean- 
ing system.  Such  abandonment  or  delay  in  the  use  of  the 
mosft  economical  methods  of  production  is  a  loss  to  society. 
The  amount  of  this  loss  due  to  the  delayed  or  the  com- 
paratively limited  adoption  of  cement,  sheet-metal  trim, 
doors,  and  furniture,  fireproofing  materials,  and  vacuum 
cleaning  systems,  caused  by  quarrels  between  various 
groups  of  workmen  as  to  which  group  should  control  the 
work  or  the  material,  is  enormous. 

On  account  of  these  difficulties  and  uncertainties,  the 
whole  building  industry  moves  more  sluggishly,  and  society 
is  compelled  to  pay  for  its  building  construction  a  price  in- 
creased sufficiently  to  maintain,  as  it  were,  an  insurance 
fund  against  the  possible  delays  and  expenses  due  to  juris- 

39  Report  on  Jurisdictional  Disputes,  1912. 


THE   COST  OF  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 45 

dictional  controversies.  Thus  the  industry  is  retarded 
mainly  by  those  who  ought  to  be  its  chief  friends.  That 
this  state  of  affairs  is  realized  and  deprecated  by  the  unions 
themselves  is  shown  by  the  following  statement  in  the  report 
of  the  executive  council  of  the  Building  Trades  Department 
in  1912 :  "  If  we  of  the  building  trades  were  alone  involved 
in  the  settlement  of  these  disputes,  we  could  afford  to  con- 
tinue our  discussion  of  them  even  though  it  may  sometimes 
result  in  conflict,  but  the  cause  for  most  concern  lies  in  the 
fact  that  we  occupy  perhaps  the  minor  position  in  this  em- 
barrassing situation.  At  all  events  we  have  no  moral  or 
ethical  right  to  embroil  the  contractor  and  owner  of  the 
building  under  construction.  ...  In  every  avenue  of  trade 
and  commerce  the  aim  is  to  encourage  a  greater  field  of 
activity,  to  increase  the  volume  of  business  year  after  year. 
By  the  same  token  it  should  be  our  purpose  to  stimulate 
greater  activity  in  building  erection.  Our  talents  and  capa- 
bilities should  be  devoted  in  large  measure  to  attain  this 
end,  for  such  a  termination  of  our  united  endeavors  would 
simply  mean  more  continuous  employment  for  the  members 
of  our  several  organizations.  That  is  to  say,  if  we  can 
demonstrate  our  ability  to  settle  trade  grievances  among 
ourselves,  without  involving  the  architect,  owner,  and  con- 
tractor, we  will  immediately  inspire  confidence  in  the  mind 
of  the  investing  public,  with  a  resultant  stimulus  in  building 
operations."*^ 

Finally,  every  large  interunion  dispute,  if  long  continued, 
brings  with  it  to  some  of  the  participants  poverty  and  the 
results  of  poverty.  As  long  as  the  result  of  a  jurisdictional 
dispute  is  the  loss  of  only  a  few  days'  work,  we  may  properly 
charge  the  loss  to  the  workman ;  but  if  unemployment  is  pro- 
longed, we  have  results  which  become  an  affair  of  society's, 
since  poverty  and  the  reduction  of  social  status  which 
follows  poverty  are  matters  which  concern  the  community 
as  a  whole.     Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  rightly  stress  this 

*o  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912,  p.  85. 
10 


146     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

loss  as  one  of  the  most  important  consequences  of  juris- 
dictional disputes.  In  describing  the  jurisdictional  disputes 
in  the  English  ship-building  industry,  they  say  that  although 
this  encroachment  of  trade  on  trade  is  often  of  the  most 
trivial  nature,  nevertheless  it  has  resulted  at  times  in  wars 
of  greatest  magnitude.  ''  In  the  industries  of  Tyneside 
within  a  space  of  thirty-five  months,  there  were  thirty-five 
weeks  in  which  one  or  other  of  the  four  most  important 
sections  of  workmen  in  the  staple  industry  of  the  district 
absolutely  refused  to  work.  This  meant  the  compulsory 
idleness  of  tens  of  thousands  of  men,  the  selling  out  of 
households,  and  the  semi-starvation  of  thousands  of  families 
totally  unconcerned  with  the  dispute,  .  .  .  while  it  left  the 
unions  in  a  state  of  weakness  from  which  it  will  take  years 
to  recover."*^ 

*i  Vol.  ii,  p.  513. 


CHAPTER  VI 
Remedies  for  Jurisdictional  Disputes 

For  the  settlement  of  these  conflicts,  which  prevail  so 
generally  and  constitute  so  large  a  cost  to  labor  and  to 
society  as  a  whole,  various  plans  have  been  suggested. 
These  may  be  divided  into  two  general  classes  as  they  are 
remedial  or  preventive,  or,  in  other  words,  arrangements 
which  are  designed  to  settle  jurisdictional  disputes  after 
they  have  occurred,  and  those  whose  purpose  it  is  to  prevent 
their  occurrence. 

Of  the  two,  the  second  is  the  more  promising  and  more 
important  class.  As  in  combating  disease,  preventive  medi- 
cine is  of  more  importance  than  remedial  medicine,  so  in 
the  matter  of  jurisdictional  controversies  it  would  be  much 
more  satisfactory  and  economical  to  prevent  their  occur- 
rence than  to  provide  a  cure  for  them  when  they  have 
arisen.  The  analogy  may  even  be  extended.  Just  as  in  the 
practice  of  medicine  effort  has  long  been  expended  on  the 
cure  of  disease,  while  the  science  of  preventive  medicine  is 
of  comparatively  recent  development,  so  trade  unions  for 
many  years  waited  for  cases  of  jurisdictional  dispute  to 
manifest  themselves  before  any  attention  was  given  the 
matter,  whereas  now  attention  is  being  centered  chiefly  upon 
methods  of  prevention. 

But  from  the  previous  discussion  of  trade  jurisdiction  in 
its  relation  to  trade  unionism,  and  from  the  analysis  of  the 
causes  of  jurisdictional  disputes,  it  must  be  evident  that  it 
is  vain  to  hope  that  disputes  will  disappear  within  any 
reasonable  time.  As  long  as  labor  is  organized  in  the 
present  manner  and  as  long  as  new  materials  and  new 
methods  are  being  introduced  into  industry,  the  causes  and 
opportunities  for  conflict  will  continue.  Hope  must  lie, 
therefore,  largely  in  the  prospect  of  removing  or  mitigating 

147 


148     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

the  evils  of  such  disputes  by  effecting  a  change  either  in  the 
organization  of  labor  or  in  the  attitude  of  trade  unionists. 
These  changes  cannot  be  brought  about  suddenly,  but  must 
result  from  a  gradual  evolution,  the  progress  of  which  can 
already  be  detected  in  various  directions. 

The  difficulty  in  analyzing  any  trade-union  practice  or  in 
forming  a  judgment  concerning  any  trade-union  policy  lies 
in  the  common  error  of  regarding  the  trade  unionist  as  a 
distinct  species  of  man,  as  actuated  by  motives  different 
from  other  men,  and  as  being  a  member  of  a  social  group 
dissimilar  and  necessarily  opposed  to  other  social  groups. 
Like  all  other  men  in  economic  life,  the  members  of  a  trade 
union  are  impelled  by  the  motive  of  self-interest.  Men 
unite  with  one  another  into  local  unions  not  to  help  other 
members  of  society,  but  to  help  themselves;  these  local 
unions  form  national  and  international  associations,  and 
these  again  great  industrial  federations,  all  for  the  purpose 
of  strengthening  the  position  of  the  individuals  within  the 
organization.  Moved  by  this  same  force,  each  union 
strives  to  enlarge  its  territory,  to  obtain  more  members,  and 
to  increase  the  work  over  which  it  has  control.  Self- 
interest  inspires  the  closed  shop,  enforces  membership  dis- 
crimination, and  opposes  individual  liberty  in  countless 
ways,  and  thus  furnishes  the  ground  for  the  charge  that 
labor  organizations  tend  to  become  tyrannical  and  dic- 
tatorial. The  solution  of  the  most  difficult  problems  of 
trade-union  policy,  many  of  which  are  connected  in  one  way 
or  another  with  the  question  of  jurisdiction,  requires  first 
of  all  the  realization  on  the  part  of  the  unionist  that  self- 
interest  demands  the  elimination  of  these  evils. 

As  has  been  said,  the  first  stage  in  the  attempt  to  deal 
with  jurisdictional  disputes  is  characterized  by  the  effort  to 
end  these  controversies  after  they  have  arisen,  and  naturally 
the  first  suggestion  for  this  purpose  is  that  there  shall  be 
a  conference  with  a  view  to  an  agreement.  That  a  con- 
ference between  the  disputing  unions  is  ordinarily  looked 
upon  as  the  obvious  remedy  for  any  jurisdictional  dispute  is 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 49 

shown  by  the  following  statement  of  the  president  of  the 
Stone  Cutters :  "  I  have  noticed  much  unnecessary  friction 
between  the  organizations  of  the  stone  cutters,  the  brick- 
layers and  masons,  the  granite  cutters  and  the  interior 
marble  workers  .  .  .  and  I  believe  a  conference  of  the 
executive  boards  of  the  various  trades  should  be  had  that  a 
line  of  demarcation  or  jurisdiction  could  be  established  and 
thus  eliminate  all  friction."^ 

A  conference  by  no  means  always  leads  to  an  agreement. 
Conferences  without  end  have  been  held  by  various  unions, 
some  unions  having  held  two  or  three  of  them  a  year  in 
regard  to  the  same  dispute,  and  yet  no  agreement  has  been 
reached  and  no  settlement  of  the  conflict  effected.  The 
Steam  Fitters  and  the  Plumbers  have  conferred  many  times, 
either  voluntarily  or  in  compliance  with  an  order  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  but  in  most  cases  without 
any  result.  At  the  Louisville  convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  in  1900  each  of  these  unions  was 
ordered  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three  to  meet  with  a 
committee  of  three  appointed  by  the  executive  council  of 
the  Federation,  to  settle  the  disputes  between  them.  The 
meeting  was  held  in  May,  1901,  in  Chicago,  but  no  agree- 
ment was  reached.^  The  quarrel  dragged  along  in  spite 
of  many  efforts  to  settle  it,  and  in  1907,  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  adjustment  committee,  the  two  unions  were 
again  ordered  to  appoint  committees  of  three  persons  to 
meet  with  President  Gompers  and  to  draw  up  an  agree- 
ment. This  appeared  to  be  an  impossible  task,  and  the  con- 
ference ended  without  having  accomplished  anything.^  To 
pick  out  another  from  the  almost  countless  conferences 
which  have  failed  to  result  in  agreement,  the  president  of 
the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  reported  that  a  meeting  had  been 
held  with  the  Plumbers  to  settle  disputes  over  the  sheet 

1  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  July,  1906,  p.  4. 

2  The  Steam  Fitter,  March,  1903,  p.  5, 

3  Proceedings,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  1907.  p.  260 


150     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

metal  and  copper  work  in  railroad  shops,  but  that  no  agree- 
ment had  resulted.* 

In  those  cases  where  agreements  have  been  reached  these 
range  from  a  mere  verbal  understanding  to  a  detailed  written 
working  agreement.  Verbal  understandings  not  infre- 
quently work  satisfactorily  for  a  single  community  and  for 
a  short  period  of  time,  but  they  fail  where  wide  application 
and  permanence  are  desired.  The  branch  of  the  Stone 
Cutters  at  Victoria,  British  Columbia,  reported  in  1893  that 
its  members  were  working  on  sandstone  and  granite  side  by 
side  with  the  Granite  Cutters,  and  that  no  trouble  arose 
since  all  matters  in  dispute  were  "talked  over"  at  a  joint 
meeting  of  the  Stone  Cutters  and  the  Granite  Cutters,  held 
every  two  weeks.^  Likewise,  the  Baltimore  branch  of  the 
Granite  Cutters  reported  that  an  understanding  had  been 
reached  for  the  settlement  of  a  jurisdictional  dispute  be- 
tween local  branches  of  the  Granite  Cutters  and  the  Stone 
Masons.  These  two  organizations  had  been  holding  joint 
committee  meetings  for  months.^  During  the  Minneapolis 
convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  a  confer- 
ence of  all  the  stone-working  trades  was  held ;  this  resulted 
simply  in  a  general  understanding,  and  as  a  result  it  was 
mistakenly  thought  that  all  jurisdictional  contests  between 
the  various  branches  would  be  brought  to  an  end.'' 

While  many  conferences  have  thus  resulted  in  verbal 
agreements  or  understandings,  usually  a  written  agreement 
has  been  signed  by  all  the  parties  to  the  conference.  Such 
instruments  vary  from  brief  general  statements  to  formal 
and  detailed  documents.  During  the  Pittsburgh  conven- 
tion of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  to  bring  to  an 
end  the  disputes  between  the  Carpenters  and  the  Wood- 
workers there  was  drawn  up  a  brief  general  agreement 
which  contained  the  following  provisions:  (i)  that  a  tem- 

*  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  January,  1908,  p.  3. 

5  Stone  Cutters'  Journal,  September,  1893,  p.  4. 

6  Granite  Cutters'  Journal,  March,  1905. 
^Ibid.,  December,  1906. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I5I 

porary  trade  agreement  be  entered  into  to  cover  all  men 
working  in  mills  and  factories;  (2)  that  pending  these  nego- 
tiations, all  local  unions  cease  hostilities;  and  (3)  that 
representatives  meet  on  a  specified  date  to  arrange  for  an 
agreement,  understanding,  or  amalgamation,  as  might  seem 
best.^  An  example  of  the  particularity  with  which  these 
agreements  are  sometimes  drawn  is  found  in  the  dispute 
between  the  Plumbers  and  the  Steam  Fitters.  This  contro- 
versy had  passed  through  all  stages  of  attempted  adjust- 
ment, and  was  finally  referred  to  the  executive  council  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor;  this  body  drew  up  a 
working  agreement  the  main  provisions  of  which  were  as 
follows:  (i)  each  union  to  refrain  from  organizing  steam 
fitters  and  helpers  in  localities  where  the  other  already  had 
a  local  branch;  (2)  each  to  submit  a  list  of  local  unions  in 
existence;  (3)  in  places  where  both  had  local  unions,  each 
to  appoint  a  committee  of  three  which  should  determine 
hours  and  wages  and  a  minimum  initiation  fee  for  which  a 
member  of  either  union  might  be  admitted  to  the  other; 
(4)  unorganized  localities  to  be  open  to  organization  by  the 
union  whose  representative  first  began  to  organize;  (5)  a 
joint  committee  composed  of  three  from  each  union  and 
the  president  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  to  act  as  a 
board  of  arbitrators  to  settle  all  grievances  between  the  two 
bodies;  (6)  neither  organization  to  allow  the  formation  of 
local  unions  or  the  admittance  of  men  into  branches  where 
there  was  a  strike  or  lockout  between  the  employers  and 
either  union;  (7)  any  member  of  the  one  union  entering 
territory  controlled  by  the  other  to  join  the  local  union  in 
control  of  the  territory  if  he  wished  to  work.^  The  Steam 
Fitters  refused  to  accept  this  agreement,  and  organized  local 
unions  in  Spokane,  Salt  Lake  City,  and  Syracuse  contrary 
to  its  provisions. 

The  weakness  of  conference  and  agreement  as  a  remedy 
for  jurisdictional  conflicts  is  that  entrance  into  an  agree- 

8  The  Wood  Worker,  December,  1905,  p.  364. 

8  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1909,  p.  31. 


152     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

ment  is  an  optional  matter,  and  its  observance  is  no  less 
optional.  There  is  no  effective  authority  to  compel  obedi- 
ence to  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  and  frequently  they  are 
soon  violated  by  one  party  or  the  other,  either  because  the 
intent  of  a  particular  clause  is  not  clear  and  is  subject  to 
various  interpretations,  or  because  one  of  the  parties  knows 
or  imagines  that  the  other  has  disregarded  certain  provi- 
sions and  therefore  feels  that  it  is  under  no  obligation  to 
maintain  the  agreement. 

The  second  remedy  for  existing  disputes  is  arbitration. 
This  differs  from  conference  in  that  the  matters  in  dispute 
are  settled  by  a  third  party  instead  of  by  the  unions  involved. 
The  conventions  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and 
those  of  the  Building  Trades  Department  very  often  act  as 
committees  of  the  whole  to  arbitrate  jurisdictional  contro- 
versies between  their  affiliated  unions.  In  fact,  one  of  the 
chief  reasons  given  for  organizing  the  Building  Trades  De- 
partment was  that  it  would  provide  an  agency  for  arbitrating 
jurisdictional  conflicts.  In  the  words  of  Secretary  Spencer: 
"The  dream  of  every  officer  who  has  ever  carried  the  re- 
sponsibility of  directing  the  affairs  of  an  international 
union  has  been  the  establishment  of  some  medium  for  the 
adjustment  of  disputes  between  trades  whose  jurisdiction 
conflicts  as  the  modernizing  of  building  erection  advances. 
The  Building  Trades  Department  has  been  designed  to  fill 
the  bill,  becoming  as  it  does,  a  clearing  house,  so  to  speak, 
for  the  adjustment  of  all  trade  disputes. "^°  At  the  conven- 
tion of  1905  of  the  Structural  Building  Trades  Alliance,  the 
predecessor  of  the  Building  Trades  Department,  a  rule  was 
adopted  which  permitted  "organizations  having  jurisdic- 
tional disputes  with  those  now  affiliated  to  be  admitted, 
provided  said  applicants  agree  to  submit  their  disputes  and 
abide  by  the  decision  rendered  by  the  AlHance."^^ 

The  usual  method  is  to  refer  the  controversy  to  a  smaller 
committee  for  adjustment  rather  than  to  have  the  whole 

^°  Prospectus  of  the  Building  Trades  Department. 

11  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  June,  1905,  p.  206. 


REMEDIES   FOR  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  $3 

convention  act  as  such  a  committee.  At  the  convention  of 
the  Plumbers  in  1908  it  was  suggested  that  a  national  juris- 
diction committee,  composed  of  one  member  from  each 
national  union,  should  be  created  to  have  final  jurisdiction  in 
all  matters  of  dispute.^^  During  the  Denver  convention  of 
the  Building  Trades  Department  the  executive  council  of 
that  body  acted  as  a  board  of  arbitration  in  an  effort  to  settle 
the  disputes  between  the  Plumbers  and  the  Steam  Fitters 
and  between  the  Hod  Carriers  and  the  Cement  Workers,^' 
while  the  latest  constitution  of  the  Building  Trades  Depart- 
ment provides  for  a  special  arbitration  committee  to  which 
"all  cases  of  trade  disputes  between  affiliated  organiza- 
tions .  .  .  shall  be  referred."  The  committee  is  "composed 
of  building  trades  men,  one  to  be  elected  by  each  of  the 
contesting  parties  having  the  dispute  and  one  by  the  presi- 
dent of  the  Building  Trades  Department.  The  decision 
rendered  by  this  board  of  arbitration  shall  be  binding  on  all 
parties  concerned  and  no  strike  shall  be  ordered  pending  a 
decision  of  the  arbitration  board."^* 

In  numerous  cases  resort  has  been  had  to  the  appoint- 
ment as  arbitrator  of  a  member  of  a  union  not  involved  in 
the  controversy.  Mr.  Rist,  a  member  of  the  Typographical 
Union,  acted  as  arbitrator  between  the  Plumbers  and  the 
Steam  Fitters.  Mr.  P.  J.  Downey,  a  member  of  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers,  served  as  arbitrator  in  the  dispute  between 
the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  Wood  Work- 
ers.^® Less  numerous  have  been  the  cases  in  which  a  person 
entirely  outside  the  labor  movement  has  been  appointed 
arbitrator.  During  the  erection  of  Sears,  Roebuck,  and 
Company's  building  in  Chicago,  a  Boston  firm,  putting  in 
the  pneumatic  tubing  for  a  carrier  system,  hired  Steam 
Fitters  to  do  the  work.     The  Plumbers  claimed  jurisdiction 

12  Proceedings,  1908,  in  Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters  and  Steam  Fitters' 
Journal,  December,  1908. 

13  Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters  and  Steam  Fitters'  Journal,  March,  1909. 
1*  Constitution,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912,  sec.  39,  p,  11. 
15  The  Wood  Worker,  March,  1903. 


/ 


154     JURISDICTION   IN    AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

over  such  piping,  and  finally  succeeded  in  tying  up  the 
whole  job.  In  order  to  end  the  trouble,  the  dispute  was 
submitted  to  Judge  Bretano,  who  decided  in  favor  of  the 
Steam  Fitters.^^  An  attempt  was  made  to  end  the  long  and 
costly  dispute  between  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and 
the  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Union  in  New  York  by  referring 
the  matter  to  Judge  W.  J.  Gaynor,  who  decided  that  metal 
trim  and  doors  should  be  erected  by  the  Carpenters.  Dur- 
ing the  building  of  the  Northwestern  Depot  in  Chicago  the 
Plasterers  withdrew  their  men  from  the  work  because  the 
Marble  Workers  were  setting  imitation  marble.  A  com- 
mittee of  the  architects,  as  arbitrators,  decided  in  favor  of 
the  Marble  Workers.^^  In  arbitration  proceedings  between 
the  Plumbers  and  the  Steam  Fitters  of  New  York,  the  right 
to  the  work  of  installing  the  thermostatic  or  heat-regulating 
apparatus  was  awarded  to  the  Plumbers  by  a  decision  of 
Honorable  Seth  Low.^^ 

The  local  building-trades  council  and  the  local  federation 
of  labor  in  the  locality  where  a  dispute  arises  frequently 
serve  as  arbitrators  when  the  dispute  is  a  purely  local  one. 
Secretary  Kreyling,  of  the  St.  Louis  Federation  of  Labor, 
thinks  that  most  disputes  could  be  settled  locally  if  the  city 
federations  were  given  authority  to  make  decisions,^^  but 
since  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  gives  them  no 
power  to  make  a  final  settlement,  they  usually  act  only  in 
an  advisory  capacity.  The  Chicago  Building  Trades 
Council  finds  one  of  its  chief  activities  in  the  work  of 
adjusting  jurisdictional  disputes,  which  are  settled  accord- 
ing to  the  jurisdiction  statements  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department.^^  In  1901  the  San  Francisco  local  union  of 
the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  reported  that  their  dispute  with 
the  Metal  Roofers'  Union  had  been  settled  by  the  local 

16  The  Steam  Fitter,  January,  1907,  p.  19. 

17  The  Marble  Worker,  July,  1910,  p.  168. 

18  Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters  and  Steam  Fitters' Journal,  April,  1899,  p.  6. 
1^  Interview,  Secretary  Kreyling,  St.  Louis,  July,  1912. 

20  Interview,  Secretary  Hanlon,  Chicago,  July,  1912. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I55 

building-trades  council  as  arbitrator.^^  Professor  Com- 
mons, in  his  article  on  the  "  New  York  Building  Trades," 
notes  the  fact  that  the  general  arbitration  plan,  submitted  by 
the  employers,  provided  for  a  local  committee  to  arbitrate 
jurisdictional  contests  and  imposed  the  penalty  of  suspen- 
sion for  failure  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators. 
Fifteen  disputes  were  thus  settled,  but  the  sixteenth  wrecked 
the  Board.22 

As  a  remedy  for  jurisdictional  disputes,  arbitration  under 
any  of  the  foregoing  plans  is  almost  uniformly  a  failure. 
In  the  first  place,  the  unions  cannot  be  compelled  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  arbitrator,  and  even  though  they  agree 
to  be  bound,  they  may  soon  feel  that  conditions  have  arisen 
which  release  them  from  their  promise.  The  American 
Federation  of  Labor  confesses  its  lack  of  coercive  power. 
"  The  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  only  limited  power 
in  the  settlement  of  these  disputes.  It  claims  no  authority 
to  intervene  and  any  action  which  it  takes  is  voluntary.  ,  .  . 
It  must  be  realized  by  all  that  the  question  of  jurisdiction 
can  not  be  definitely  or  authoritatively  settled  by  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  alone,  but  that  the  success  of  the 
unions  in  solving  these  difficult  problems  must  depend  upon 
their  own  reasonableness  and  upon  their  willingness  to 
make  mutual  concessions  and  sacrifices  for  the  good  of  the 
whole  labor  movement. "^^ 

When  the  executive  council  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  decided  in  favor  of  the  Wood  Workers  as  against 
the  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  in  arbitration  pro- 
ceedings during  1902,  the  Carpenters  refused  to  accept  the 
decision,  and  quoted  the  following  resolution,  which  was 
adopted  at  the  Louisville  convention  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  as  showing  the  lack  of  authority  on  the 
part  of   the  Federation:   "The  American   Federation   of 

21  Proceedings  of  the  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers,  1901, 
p.  25. 

22  P.  412. 

23  Proceedings,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  1903,  p.  ']^. 


156     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

Labor  shall  hereafter  refuse  to  decide  questions  of  juris- 
diction involving  national  or  international  affiliated  bodies 
unless  by  consent  of  the  opposing  interests  and  with  the 
understanding  that  each  is  willing  to  accept  the  decision  .  .  . 
as  a  final  settlement  of  the  dispute."^* 

Arbitration  proceedings  fail  to  end  jurisdictional  disputes 
also  because  of  the  lack  of  confidence  which  the  unions  feel 
in  the  arbitrators.  The  ever-present  doubt  as  to  the  fairness 
and  competence  of  the  umpire  is  not  infrequently  regarded 
as  justified  by  the  union  against  which  the  decision  is  made. 
When  the  arbitrators  are  non-unionists,  they  are  not  likely 
to  have  knowledge  of  or  sympathy  with  all  the  implications 
of  the  jurisdiction  claims  of  the  contestants.  It  was  charged 
by  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  that  Judge  Gaynor,  in  award- 
ing the  erection  of  hollow  metal  doors  and  trim  to  the 
Carpenters,  showed  in  the  language  of  his  decision  a  failure 
to  understand  the  technique  of  the  manufacture  and  erec- 
tion of  this  material.  Nor  is  the  disinclination  of  unionists 
to  submit  to  fellow-unionists  questions  which  appear  to  them 
to  be  of  vital  importance  in  their  industrial  life  ill-founded. 
The  threads  of  jurisdiction  cross  and  recross  the  fabric  of 
labor  organization  in  such  varied  directions  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  find  a  member  of  any  trade  union  who  does 
not  feel  himself  in  sympathy  with  one  side  or  the  other  in 
every  jurisdictional  dispute  that  comes  to  his  notice. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  Building 
Trades  Department  fail  as  arbitration  agencies^^   for  the 

2*  Pamphlet  on  a  dispute  between  Carpenters  and  Wood  Workers, 
p.  II.  The  lack  of  respect  in  which  such  arbitration  proceedings  are 
held  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  even  while  the  arbitration  committee 
on  the  conflict  between  the  Carpenters  and  the  Wood  Workers  was 
holding  its  sessions  in  Indianapolis,  the  representatives  of  the  Car- 
penters used  their  spare  time  between  sessions  to  organize  a  dual 
union  of  wood  workers  in  that  city  (The  Wood  Worker,  August, 
1905,  p.  240). 

25  S.  Blum,  "  Jurisdictional  Disputes  Resulting  from  Structural 
Differences  in  American  Trade  Unions,"  in  University  of  California 
Publications  in  Economics,  vol.  iii,  no.  3,  pp.  424,  433. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  15/ 

reason  that  their  very  existence  is  too  intimately  dependent 
upon  the  numbers  and  the  contributions  of  the  affiliated 
unions  for  them  to  be  absolutely  impartial  in  passing  upon 
disputes  in  which  the  size  and  strength  of  the  contending 
unions  is  very  dissimilar.  A  parallel  study  of  the  treat- 
ment accorded  the  Steam  Fitters  in  their  dispute  with  the 
Plumbers  and  that  accorded  the  Carpenters  in  their  con- 
troversies with  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  and  the  Wood 
Workers  will  convince  any  one  that  it  is  not  without  cause 
that  the  unions  are  unwilling  to  rely  for  a  decision  as  to  their 
jurisdiction  claims  upon  the  justice  and  impartiality  of  either 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  or  the  Building  Trades 
Department. 

A  third  remedy  frequently  suggested  for  the  settlement 
of  jurisdictional  conflicts  is  simple  in  conception  and  certain 
in  curative  effect  if  the  unions  in  conflict  could  only  be 
persuaded  to  adopt  it.  This  is  amalgamation.  Here  are 
two  unions  fighting  each  other  because  both  claim  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  same  territory  or  the  same  trade.  Let  them 
form  one  union.  Unfortunately  for  the  success  of  this 
remedy,  the  unions  generally  refuse  to  adopt  it;  they  will 
not  amalgamate. 

At  the  convention  of  1906  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  President  Gompers  reported  that  during  the  past 
year  he  had  met  with  committees  of  Seamen  and  Long- 
shoremen and  of  Carpenters  and  Wood  Workers  in  an  effort 
to  settle  their  conflicts.  Amalgamation  was  suggested  in 
both  cases,  but  was  rejected.^^  The  Carpenters  indeed  en- 
tered the  conference  with  the  statement  that  "  the  only 
working  agreement  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and 
Joiners  will  make  with  the  Woodworkers  will  be  amalga- 
mation,"^^  but  the  Wood  Workers  were  unwilling  to  amalga- 
mate. A  very  unsatisfactory  condition,  which  led  to  many 
jurisdictional  disputes,  existed  among  the  hod  carriers  and 
building  laborers  for  several  years.     There  was  the  "  legiti- 

26  Proceedings,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  1906,  p.  75. 

27  The  Wood  Worker,  February,  1906,  p.  43. 


158     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

mate  "  Hod  Carriers'  and  Building  Laborers'  Union,  a  large 
seceding  local  union  in  Chicago  headed  by  Herman  Lillien, 
and  several  large  independent  organizations  in  San  Fran- 
cisco and  other  cities. ^^  To  remedy  this  condition  it  was 
decided  to  amalgamate  all  the  separate  bodies  under  the 
guidance  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the 
Building  Trades  Department,^®  but  the  plan  failed.  Amal- 
gamation has  frequently  been  urged  as  a  remedy  for  the 
jurisdictional  conflicts  occurring  between  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  and  the  American  branch  of  the 
Amalgamated  Society  of  Carpenters.  In  1903  committees 
from  both  unions  met  and,  with  Adolph  Strasser  as  umpire, 
agreed  upon  a  plan  of  amalgamation,  but  this  had  to  be 
submitted  to  a  referendum  vote  of  the  members  of  both 
unions,  and  it  failed  of  acceptance.^**  At  various  times  since 
then  efforts  have  been  made  to  accomplish  this  result,  but 
they  have  uniformly  failed,  the  stumbling  block  being  the 
difficulty  of  arranging  satisfactory  terms  upon  which  the 
members  of  the  Amalgamated  Society  might  be  admitted 
to  the  insurance  and  beneficial  features  of  the  United 
Brotherhood,  and  at  the  same  time  retain  such  property 
rights  as  they  might  have  in  similar  funds  in  their  own  Amal- 
gamated Society.^^  The  American  Federation  of  Labor  has 
lately  sought  to  solve  the  problem  by  ordering  the  Amalga- 
mated Society  to  unite  with  the  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters. 
As  was  said  before,  the  failure  of  amalgamation  as  a 
remedy  for  jurisdictional  disputes  is  due  to  the  fact  that, 
except  in  rare  cases,  the  unions  will  not  adopt  it.  Amalga- 
mation, as  it  actually  works  out,  means  the  swallowing  of 
the  smaller  organization  engaged  in  the  dispute  by  the 
larger  one.  If  the  Operative  Plasterers,  for  example, 
should  consent  to  amalgamate  with  the  Bricklayers,  or  if 
the  Wood  Workers  should  agree  to  amalgamate  with  the 

28  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1910,  p.  30. 

29  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1908,  p.  50. 

30  Proceedings,  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  1904,  p.  34  flF. 

31  Proceedings,  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  1906,  p.  36  ff. 


REMEDIES   FOR  JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I  59 

Carpenters,  they  would  lose  their  identity  in  that  of  the 
larger  organization — a  form  of  trade-union  suicide  not  likely 
to  be  considered  unless  the  future  is  absolutely  hopeless 
and  continued  separate  existence  an  impossibility. 

A  milder  remedy  proposed  is  that  described  by  the  phrase 
"  exchange  of  cards."  Under  this  plan  each  of  two  unions 
with  a  conflict  in  jurisdiction — for  example,  the  Granite 
Cutters  and  the  Stone  Cutters — keeps  its  own  members,  but 
if  a  member  of  one  union  is  employed  upon  some  work 
which  the  other  claims  to  control  and  presents  to  the  latter 
association  his  card  showing  that  he  is  in  good  standing  in 
his  own  union,  he  will  be  permitted  to  work  provided  he 
obtains  the  rate  of  pay  and  the  other  working  conditions 
that  the  workmen  of  the  union  in  control  of  the  job  have. 
At  the  convention  of  the  Plumbers  in  1900  a  recommenda- 
tion was  made  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer  with 
a  committee  from  the  Steam  Fitters  for  the  purpose  of 
arranging  for  the  exchange  of  working  cards  between  the 
two  associations.^^  As  early  as  1890  a  resolution  was 
adopted  empowering  the  executive  board  of  the  Bricklayers 
to  seek  to  make  an  arrangement  for  an  exchange  of  cards 
with  the  Operative  Plasterers.^^  That  this  arrangement 
failed  of  permanent  establishment  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
in  1904  the  president  of  the  Bricklayers  reported  that  the 
Operative  Plasterers  had  agreed  to  exchange  cards,  but  that 
the  local  unions  of  bricklayers  refused.^* 

The  plan  for  an  exchange  of  cards  is  frequently  pro- 
posed but  rarely  adopted.  When  one  union  agrees  with 
another  to  exchange  cards,  it  means  that  the  first  union  has 
granted  the  other  the  privilege  of  working  unmolested  upon 
that  which  it  maintains  is  its  own  field  of  jurisdiction. 
True,  it  gets  in  exchange  a  like  privilege  from  the  second 
union,  but  if  the  members  of  one  of  the  organizations  are 

32  Proceedings,  1900,  in  Plumbers,  Gas  Fitters  and  Steam  Fitters* 
Journal,  August,  1900,  p.  9. 

33  Proceedings,  Bricklayers  and  Masons,  1890,  p.  93. 
3*  Annual  Report  of  the  President,  1904,  p.  5. 


l60     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

likely  to  secure  most  of  the  disputed  work,  the  other  union 
will  be  unwilling  or  at  any  rate  reluctant  to  enter  into  such 
an  arrangement.  Moreover,  the  view  that  trade  jurisdic- 
tion is  a  right  militates  strongly  against  a  purely  compromise 
measure  like  the  exchange  of  cards. 

This  objection  is  partly  eliminated  by  another  remedy  pro- 
posed, that  is,  to  compel  workmen  engaged  upon  disputed 
tasks  to  become  members  of  both  unions  claiming  the  work 
in  question.  This  plan  was  used  to  some  extent  to  bring  to 
an  end  disputes  between  the  Stone  Cutters  and  the  Brick- 
layers in  Washington.  Men  who  were  competent  to  do 
stone  cutting  and  stone  setting  joined  both  unions,  paying 
initiation  fees  and  dues  to  each,  and  were  then  permitted 
to  work  at  either  trade.^^  A  dispute  between  the  Sheet 
Metal  Workers  and  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  was  settled 
by  having  the  members  of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  take  out 
membership  cards  in  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers'  Union 
when  they  wanted  to  do  the  particular  work  involved  in  the 
dispute.^®  In  Denver  the  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers  had  an 
agreement  with  the  Composition  Roofers  that  members  of 
the  former  should  be  permitted  to  join  the  latter  without 
paying  any  initiation  fee,  though  they  would  afterwards 
have  to  pay  the  regular  dues.^^ 

The  chief  defect  of  this  plan  is  that  it  is  too  expensive 
for  the  workman  to  pay  dues,  and  in  some  cases  initiation 
fees,  to  two  unions,  merely  to  acquire  the  right  to  do 
occasional  work  outside  of  his  own  immediate  trade.  A 
second  defect  is  that  some  unions  are  reluctant  to  admit  to 
membership  any  workman,  however  competent  he  may  be, 
who  has  not  complied  with  their  apprenticeship  require- 
ments. 

Besides  the  specific  objections  noted  to  the  various  reme- 
dies, there  remains  the  general  criticism  that  the  application 
of  any  of  these  remedies  involves  vexatious  and  often  serious 

35  Interview,  Secretary  McHugh  of  the  Stone  Cutters,  June,  191 1. 

36  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  May,  1908,  p.  183. 

37  Proceedings,  Slate  and  Tile  Roofers,  1906,  p.  14. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  l6l 

delays.  According  to  the  rules  of  the  Building  Trades  De- 
partment, neither  the  Department  nor  its  executive  council 
can  consider  a  dispute  unless  the  two  unions  have  first  held 
a  conference  and  tried  to  settle  it.  Frequently  the  executive 
council  refers  it  back  again  to  the  unions  to  try  to  settle,  and 
again  it  may  be  returned  to  the  council,  and  then  be  re- 
ferred by  them  to  the  following  convention  of  the  Building 
Trades  Department,  which  may  be  some  months  distant. 
In  the  meantime  the  work  may  be  tied  up,  or  the  men  to 
whom  the  work  belongs,  or  to  whom  it  is  finally  awarded, 
may  be  idle ;  when  the  decision  is  finally  given  in  their  favor, 
they  may  find  the  work  completed. 

In  Vancouver  a  dispute  arose  between  the  Stone  Cutters  and 
the  Granite  Cutters  over  the  control  of  "  Haddington  Island 
stone."  After  repeated  efforts  to  have  the  conflict  adjusted, 
the  local  union  of  Stone  Cutters  complained  of  the  delay. 
*'We  are  amazed,"  they  said,  "that  the  matter  has  been 
delayed  till  the  end  of  August,  as  we  have  men  walking  the 
streets.  ...  It  is  a  simple  matter  to  decide  whether  ma- 
terial is  stone  or  granite.  .  .  .  The  matter  has  been  before 
the  Building  Trades  Department  for  the  last  fourteen 
weeks,  and  we  think  a  decision  should  be  rendered  imme- 
diately." This  did  not  hurry  the  settlement,  however,  for 
President  Short  of  the  Department  failed  to  bring  about  an 
agreement  when  he  visited  the  locality,  and  referred  the 
matter  to  the  Building  Trades  Department  convention,  held 
the  latter  part  of  November.  The  convention  made  no 
definite  decision,  merely  recommending  that  the  two  unions 
work  in  harmony,  and  that  where  granite  cutters'  tools  were 
used  the  work  should  be  done  by  Granite  Cutters,  and  where 
stone  cutters'  tools  were  used  it  should  be  done  by  Stone 
Cutters.  The  specific  question  involved  was  left  unsettled, 
and  was  referred  to  a  conference  of  the  stone  trades,  for 
which  no  date  was  set.^^ 

From  this  review  of  the  various  remedies  for  jurisdic- 

38  Proceedings,  Building  Trades  Department,  1912,  pp.  45,  137. 
II 


1 62     JURISDICTION    IN    AMERICAN    BUILDING-TRADES    UNIONS 

tional  contests,  the  general  conclusion  may  be  safely  reached 
that  although  each  of  them  has  been  successful  in  a  few 
isolated  cases,  none  of  them  nor  all  of  them  together  are  of 
general  availability. 

We  turn  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  possibility  of 
finding  one  or  more  preventives  of  jurisdictional  disputes. 
This  search  will  disclose  certain  positive  measures  either 
actually  in  force  or  suggested,  which  are  designed  to  prevent 
jurisdictional  conflicts  or  to  lessen  the  evils  involved. 
Moreover — and  this  is  even  more  important — it  will  be 
found  also  that  there  are  certain  developments  and  ten- 
dencies within  the  ranks  of  labor  itself  which  promise 
eventually  to  reduce  the  evils  of  jurisdictional  controversies. 

One  of  the  earliest  steps  in  the  direction  of  the  prevention 
of  disputes  was  the  sensible  requirement  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor^^  that  the  jurisdiction  claims  of  the 
various  affiliated  unions  be  listed  in  full  and  filed  at  its 
office.  The  National  Building  Trades  Council,  which  fol- 
lowed the  same  plan,  made  the  following  optimistic 
prophecy:  "The  system  of  jurisdictional  statement  of  work, 
as  enforced  by  the  National  Building  Trades  Council,  will 
bring  about  a  cessation  of  internecine  strife  among  building 
trades."*^  The  Building  Trades  Department  requires  that 
"each  affiliated  organization  shall  be  required  to  submit  a 
written  statement  covering  the  extent  and  character  of  its 
trade  jurisdiction,  and  when  allowed  by  the  executive 
council  and  approved  by  the  general  convention,  no  en- 
croachment by  other  trades  will  be  countenanced  or  toler- 
ated.""*^    A  new  application  of  this  idea  was  the  insertion  of 

39  The  Steam  Fitter,  March,  1903,  p.  5. 

*o  Pamphlet  on  National  Building  Trades  Council,  p.  8. 

*i  Constitution,  1909,  sec.  28,  p.  9.  The  next  section  provides  the 
machinery  for  final' registration  of  work:  "On  receipt  of  a  claim 
of  jurisdiction,  the  Secretary-Treasurer  shall  send  a  copy  of  the 
same  to  affiliated  organizations.  Should  a  conflict  in  jurisdiction 
occur,  the  parties  in  interest  shall  hold  a  joint  conference  within 
ninety  days,  and  endeavor  to  adjust  their  differences,  and  if  no 
adjustment  has  been  reached  within  the  prescribed  time,  the  dis- 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 63 

a  clause  defining  the  work  of  each  craft  as  part  of  an  agree- 
ment of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  with  the  International 
and  Great  Northern  Railroad  Company  in  regard  to  wages 
and  hours.^2  The  importance  of  a  clear  and  full  statement 
of  jurisdiction  claims  was  discussed  in  an  earlier  chapter,*^ 
and  while  it  is  needless  to  say  that  the  mere  registration  of 
such  claims  will  not  prevent  all  disputes,  nevertheless  it  is 
certain  that  such  official  record  has  prevented  many  con- 
flicts from  arising. 

Another  preventive  measure  suggested  is  to  have  all  labor 
organizations  agree  that  they  will  under  no  circumstances 
participate  in  sympathetic  strikes  arising  over  jurisdiction 
conflicts.  If  this  plan  were  adopted,  disputes  would  not  be 
avoided,  but  the  evils  flowing  from  them  would  be  very 
largely  eliminated.  If  sympathetic  strikes  could  be  avoided, 
employers  would  not  care  very  much  if  union  men  quarreled 
among  themselves.  Accordingly  they  seek  at  every  oppor- 
tunity to  have  the  unionists  agree  that  they  will  not  indulge 
in  such  movements.  At  a  conference  held  in  March,  1903, 
between  the  National  Association  of  Marble  Dealers  and  the 
International  Association  of  Marble  Workers  a  working 
agreement  was  drawn  up  in  which  it  was  declared  that  no 
sympathetic  strikes  or  lockouts  should  occur.**  The  con- 
tractor for  the  Emerson  Building,  Baltimore,  in  giving  out 
the  work,  tried  to  get  the  various  trades  to  sign  an  agree- 
ment saying  that  they  would  not  go  out  on  sympathetic 
strikes.*^  It  is  curious  to  notice  that  some  opposition  to  the 
use  of  the  sympathetic  strike  comes  also  from  the  Building 
Trades  Department.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  such 
strikes  are  likely  to  disrupt  the  local  councils  of  the  De- 
puted points  shall  be  referred  to  the  next  convention  of  this  Depart- 
ment for  a  decision,  and  their  award  shall  be  binding  upon  all  affil- 
iated organizations." 

42  Amalgamated  Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Journal,  March,  1910,  p.  88. 

43  Chapter  II. 

**  Pamphlet  dealing  with  the  Conference,  p.  2. 
*5  0ral  statement  made  at  meeting  of  Baltimore  Federation  of 
Labor,  December  14,  1910. 


1 64     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

partment.  Thus  President  Kirby  of  the  Building  Trades 
Department  said  in  1909:  "While  we  can  not  for  one 
moment  surrender  our  right  to  take  sympathetic  action 
where  a  sister  organization  is  in  peril,  yet  ofttimes  Building 
Trades  Councils  are  prone  to  hasty  action  unnecessarily,  on 
the  theory  that  quick  work  must  be  done,  otherwise  the  job 
may  be  completed.  Admitting  that  on  small  buildings  this 
may  be  true,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  better  to 
complete  the  job  on  which  any  contention  may  arise  .  .  . 
than  to  endanger  the  existence  of  the  Council."*® 

Undoubtedly,  if  sympathetic  strikes  could  be  eliminated, 
the  great  weapon  by  which  jurisdictional  strife  is  made  most 
damaging  would  be  destroyed,  and  a  long  step  would  be 
taken  in  the  direction  of  preventing  such  contests.  But 
while  unionists  in  general  might  look  with  favor  upon  the 
abstract  proposition  of  eliminating  sympathetic  strikes  as  a 
weapon  in  jurisdictional  disputes,  most  of  them  would 
pause  before  consenting  to  give  up  for  their  own  association 
the  right  to  call  a  sympathetic  strike.  The  situation  is 
analogous  to  that  existing  in  regard  to  the  scheme  of  inter- 
national disarmament:  nearly  all  nations  are  nominally  in 
favor  of  the  plan,  but  none  of  them  will  be  the  first  to 
disarm. 

Another  plan  which  employers  sometimes  advocate  as  a 
preventive  for  such  controversies  is  that  trade  lines  be  dis- 
regarded and  they  be  permitted  to  hire  for  each  task  the 
men  who  can  do  it  best.*'^  This,  however,  amounts  merely 
to  a  request  on  the  part  of  employers  that  trade  unionists 
shall  cease  to  quarrel  over  jurisdiction.  Besides  resting 
upon  the  erroneous  assumption  that  the  men  in  a  particular 
trade  are  not,  in  most  cases,  more  competent  to  perform  the 
work  pertaining  to  that  trade  than  men  outside  of  the  trade, 
this  scheme  fails  because  trade  unionists  will  not  allow 
trade  lines  to  be  disregarded.  If  they  should  consent  to 
this,  there  would  be  nothing  to  prevent  the  employer  from 

*«  Proceedings,  1909,  p.  9. 
*7  Webb,  vol.  ii,  p.  519. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  l6$ 

gradually  displacing  his  more  highly  paid  men  by  men 
earning  lower  wages,  and  collective  bargaining  would  be 
impossible. 

Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  suggest  a  preventive  measure 
in  their  "  Industrial  Democracy."  This  is  based  upon  a 
federation  of  trades  which  amounts  to  limited  industrial 
unionism.^^  Such  a  form  of  organization  having  been  ac- 
complished, "  it  is  admitted  that,  within  the  limits  of  a 
single  trade  and  a  single  union,  it  is  for  the  employer,  and 
the  employer  alone,  to  decide  which  individual  workman  he 
will  engage,  and  upon  which  particular  jobs  he  will  employ 
him.  What  each  trade  union  asks  is  that  the  recognized 
standard  rate  for  the  particular  work  in  question  shall  be 
maintained  and  defended  against  possible  encroachment. 
If  the  same  conception  were  extended  to  the  whole  group 
of  allied  trades,  any  employer  might  be  left  free,  within  the 
wide  circle  of  the  federated  unions,  to  employ  whichever 
man  he  pleased  on  the  disputed  process,  so  long  as  he  paid 
him  the  standard  rate  agreed  upon  for  the  particular  task. 
The  federated  trade  unions,  instead  of  vainly  trying  to  settle 
to  which  trade  a  task  rightfully  belongs,  should,  in  fact,  con- 
fine themselves  to  determining  in  consultation  with  the  as- 
sociated employers,  at  what  rate  it  should  be  paid  for.  .  .  . 
Once  the  special  rate  for  the  disputed  process  was  authori- 
tatively determined,  the  individual  employer  might  engage 
any  workman  he  pleased  at  that  rate.  .  .  .  The  trade  union- 
ists, on  the  other  hand,  would  secure  their  fundamental 
principle  of  maintaining  the  standard  rate."*® 

This  plan  assumes  that  jurisdictional  disputes  are  caused 
by  differences  in  wages  between  unions  which  seek  to  do 
the  same  piece  of  work,  and  that  if  a  definite  rate  for  each 


48 "  The  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be  found  in  a  form  of 
organization  which  secures  Home  Rule  [or  autonomy]  for  any 
group  possessing  interests  divergent  from  those  of  the  industry  as 
a  whole,  whilst  at  the  same  time  maintaining  effective  combination 
throughout  the  entire  industry  for  the  promotion  of  the  interests 
which  are  common  to  all  the  sections"  (vol.  i,  p.  123). 

*»  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  523  ff. 


1 66     JURISDICTION    IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

task  is  established  there  will  be  no  conflict.  But  juris- 
dictional contests  are  not  caused  merely  by  differences  in 
wages.  They  are  caused  by  the  efforts  of  two  or  more 
unions  to  gain  for  their  own  members  control  over  the  work 
in  question.  In  the  case  of  two  organizations  whose  stand- 
ard rates  are  approximately  the  same  the  remedy  proposed 
may  be  said  already  to  exist,  yet  the  disputes  between  them 
continue.  For  example,  the  standard  wage  of  the  Car- 
penters and  of  the  Sheet  Metal  Workers  differs  very  slightly, 
and  in  some  sections  not  at  all,  nevertheless  there  is  con- 
tinual quarreling  between  them  as  to  which  union  is  entitled 
to  the  work  of  erecting  metal  trim.  The  same  thing  is 
true  of  the  Steam  Fitters  and  the  Plumbers  and  of  the 
Granite  Cutters  and  the  Stone  Cutters.  A  union  has  two 
main  purposes:  to  keep  its  members  employed  as  regularly 
as  possible,  and  to  have  them  remunerated  at  the  highest 
possible  rate  while  they  are  working. 

This  proposal  would  not  meet  the  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  union  that  all  trespassers  on  its  jurisdiction  are  tak- 
ing away  just  so  much  work  from  its  members.  Imagine 
an  employer,  about  to  hire  men  to  put  up  hollow  metal 
doors,  going  to  the  office  of  the  Carpenters  and  saying,  "  I 
am  going  to  employ  Sheet  Metal  Workers  to  do  this  work, 
but  I  know  you  will  not  object,  since  I  am  paying  them  at 
the  same  rate  at  which  I  would  pay  your  men !  "  Or  let  us 
suppose  that  all  the  workmen  in  the  building  industry  were 
organized  into  a  building  workmen's  union,  and  that  after 
a  series  of  conferences  the  standard  rate  for  each  craft  were 
established.  Then  let  us  assume  the  sudden  introduction  of 
concrete  for  building  purposes.  A  standard  rate  for  this 
new  work  must  be  established,  but  obviously,  since  the  work 
of  mixing  and  filling  in  concrete  is  mainly  unskilled  labor, 
the  rate  agreed  upon  cannot  be  much  higher  than  that  for 
unskilled  labor.  However,  this  material,  since  it  displaces 
brick  and  stone  for  building  purposes,  gives  to  a  low-wage 
group  among  the  building  workmen  a  great  deal  of  work 
which  was  formerly  done  by  a  very  high- wage  group.     Of 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  16/ 

course,  society  will  profit  in  the  long  run  by  this  substitution 
of  cheaper  material,  but  for  the  generation  of  bricklayers 
and  masons  displaced  entirely  or  compelled  to  work  for  this 
lower  wage  the  innovation  is  an  evil  to  be  vigorously  re- 
sisted. Each  workman  seeks  first  of  all  his  own  steady 
employment,  and  will  oppose  any  scheme  that  makes  it  easy 
to  dislodge  him. 

Were  it  only  a  matter  of  maintaining  or  raising  the  rate 
of  pay  for  a  particular  class  of  work,  there  ought  never  to 
be  any  jurisdictional  disputes  between  unions  getting  dif- 
ferent rates  of  pay,  for  as  soon  as  a  piece  of  work  came 
into  dispute,  the  union  getting  the  lower  rate,  if  it  were 
intent  upon  having  such  labor  paid  for  at  as  high  a  rate  as 
possible,  would  immediately  withdraw  in  favor  of  the  men 
receiving  the  higher  pay,  and  there  would  be  no  dispute. 
Under  such  a  scheme  a  strong  union  like  the  Carpenters, 
whose  members  obtain  a  higher  rate  of  pay  than  prevails 
in  some  of  the  other  building  trades,  might  push  out  its 
lines  of  jurisdiction  to  encompass  all  those  crafts  whose 
members  receive  smaller  compensation.  The  latter  could 
logically  offer  no  resistance.  If  the  wage  scale  were  again 
gradually  advanced  so  that  it  exceeded  the  rate  paid  in  a 
few  other  unions  in  the  building  industry,  new  raids  could 
be  made  upon  the  jurisdiction  of  these  more  poorly  paid 
unions.  Even  though  in  many  jurisdictional  conflicts  the 
participants  are  working  under  different  standard  rates,  this 
fact  does  not  deter  the  men  getting  the  smaller  rate  from 
opposing  with  all  their  strength  the  aggressions  of  the  more 
highly  paid  workmen.  Therefore,  it  is  clear  that  any  plan 
for  eliminating  jurisdictional  disputes  must  provide  not  only 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  standard  rate,  but  also  for  the 
awarding  to  each  group  of  workmen  of  the  same  tasks  to 
which  they  have  been  accustomed,  or  an  equivalent. 

While  the  measures  proposed,  both  remedial  and  pre- 
ventive, offer  little  prospect  of  any  great  immediate  reduc- 
tion in  the  evils  of  jurisdictional  disputes,  the  future  is  not 
without  promise  that  the  evils  of  jurisdictional  controversies 


1 68     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES    UNIONS 

will  be  much  lessened  by  certain  developments  and  tend- 
encies within  the  unions  themselves.  The  first  of  these  is 
the  strengthening  of  the  national  union.^^  As  was  shown 
earlier,^^  there  is  a  tendency  toward  the  strengthening  of  the 
national  union  as  against  all  subordinate  or  minor  forms  of 
organization.  The  organizing  of  the  men  in  a  trade  is  done 
now  mainly  by  organizers  attached  to  the  central  office ;  new 
local  unions  are  created  by  charter  from  the  national  union ; 
wage  scales,  agreements,  strikes,  and  local  rules  are  subject 
to  the  scrutiny  and  approval  of  the  national  officers.  Here- 
tofore, jurisdictional  disputes  have  been  increased  in  num- 
ber and  rendered  more  difficult  of  settlement  because  of  the 
interference  therein  of  local  building-trades  councils  and  city 
federations.  Such  local  associations  have  ordered  sym- 
pathetic strikes  to  enforce  the  jurisdiction  claim  of  one 
union  as  against  another,  and  these  have  involved,  at  one 
time  or  another,  local  branches  of  all  the  building  trades. 
Furthermore,  in  their  attempts  to  adjust  these  demarcation 
conflicts  according  to  local  conditions,  the  local  councils  have 
rendered  decisions  which  varied  widely  from  place  to  place 
and  which  the  national  unions  of  the  trades  involved  were 
not  willing  to  sanction.  This  lack  of  uniformity  has,  in  the 
past,  been  very  confusing.  The  tendency  now  is  to  take 
these  matters  entirely  out  of  the  hands  of  the  local  councils 
and  bring  them  under  the  control  of  the  national  unions. 

The  central  labor  organizations  in  various  localities  have 
also  augmented  jurisdictional  disputes  by  the  creation  of 
dual  unions,  but  since  its  organization  the  Building  Trades 
Department  has  sought,  through  the  national  unions  affili- 
ated with  it,  to  bring  such  pressure  to  bear  on  these  local 
federations  as  to  prevent  them  from  recognizing  in  any 
manner  a  dual  association.  The  national  unions  in  the 
building  trades  have  not  yet  developed  sufficient  control 

50  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  term  "  national  union  "  is  used 
throughout  this  monograph  to  cover  also  those  associations  which 
style  themselves  "  international  unions." 

^1  Chapter  I. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1 69 

over  their  local  branches  to  make  these  efforts  always  suc- 
cessful, but  the  tendency  is  toward  greater  central  control. 
The  dominance  of  the  national  union  is  expressly  recognized 
by  the  Building  Trades  Department  and  by  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  The  constitution  of  the  latter  pro- 
vides as  follows :  "  No  central  labor  union,  or  any  other 
central  body  of  delegates,  shall  admit  to  or  retain  in  their 
councils  delegates  from  any  local  organization  that  owes  its 
allegiance  to  any  other  body,  national  or  international,  hostile 
to  any  affiliated  organization,  or  that  has  been  suspended  or 
expelled  by,  or  is  not  connected  with,  a  national  or  inter- 
national organization  of  their  trade  herein  affiliated,  under 
penalty  of  having  their  charter  revoked."  This  rule,  while 
not  fully  effective,  does  undoubtedly  aid  the  national  unions 
in  preventing  the  organization  of  dual  unions.^^  The  cen- 
tralization of  the  national  union  in  itself  operates  to  prevent 
the  formation  and  growth  of  independent  or  dual  unions  in 
the  same  trade  or  territory,  and,  at  the  same  time,  this  posi- 
tion of  dominance,  by  tending  toward  a  clear  and  uniform 
statement  of  jurisdiction  claims,  diminishes  demarcation 
disputes. 

Another  development  which  promises  to  restrict  the 
number  and  the  evil  effects  of  interunion  quarrels  is  the 
tendency  toward  industrial  unionism.  This  tendency,  how- 
ever, will  be  retarded  by  the  same  obstacles  which  were 
discussed  in  connection  with  the  Webb  plan.  Any  form  of 
industrial  union,  to  be  effective  in  preventing  jurisdictional 
disputes,  must  to  a  great  extent  eliminate  trade  lines,  and 
therefore  as  long  as  unions  insist  on  drawing  rigid  lines  of 
jurisdiction  for  the  purpose  of  retaining  for  their  own  par- 
ticular group  all  of  a  certain  class  of  work,  we  cannot 
expect  industrial  unionism  to  make  much  progress.  But 
there  is  evidence  that  this  attitude  of  the  trade  unionists 

52  For  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  pressure  thus  exerted  against 
dual  unions,  see  G.  E.  Barnett,  "The  Dominance  of  the  National 
Labor  Union  in  American  Labor  Organization,"  in  Quarterly  Jour- 
nal of  Economics,  vol.  xxvii,  no.  3. 


I/O     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

is  changing,  and  therefore  we  may  look  for  this  trend  toward 
the  industrial  union  to  continue.  By  the  industrial  union 
we  do  not  mean  such  a  form  of  organization  as  the  In- 
dustrial Workers  of  the  World  seek  to  bring  about,  but  an 
industrial  unionism  based  on  pragmatic  considerations.  It 
is  becoming  evident  that  the  labor  organization  of  the  future 
will  be  partly  trade  union  and  partly  industrial  union.  In 
some  cases  the  organization  will  be  a  limited  form  of  in- 
dustrial union,  under  which,  within  the  industry,  trade  lines 
will  be  more  or  less  definitely  marked.  In  other  cases  there 
will  be  an  entire  elimination  of  craft  distinctions.  Since, 
however,  the  change  will  come  about  as  a  result  of  develop- 
ment, the  form  will  probably  be  a  compromise  between  the 
two  forms  of  organization. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  founded  on  the  creed 
that  organization  should  be  effected  according  to  trade,  early 
took  a  stand  against  industrialism.  President  Gompers,  at 
the  convention  of  1903  of  the  Federation  of  Labor,  said: 
"  The  attempt  to  force  the  trade  unions  into  what  has  been 
termed  industrial  organization  is  perversive  of  the  history  of 
the  labor  movement,  runs  counter  to  the  best  conceptions  of 
the  toilers'  interests  now,  and  is  sure  to  lead  to  the  confusion 
which  precedes  dissolution  and  disruption.  ...  It  is  time 
...  to  stem  the  tide  of  expansion  madness.  .  .  .  The  advo- 
cates of  the  so-called  industrial  union  urge  that  an  effective 
strike  can  only  be  conducted  when  all  workmen,  regardless 
of  trade  or  occupation,  are  affected  But  this  theory  is  easily 
disproved  by  an  examination  of  the  history  of  strikes."^^ 
Though  this  opposition  has  never  disappeared,  the  Federa- 
tion as  represented  by  its  officers  has  reluctantly  gone  along 
with  the  sweep  of  the  tide.  At  the  Scranton  convention  a 
committee,  composed  of  Messrs.  Gompers,  Duncan, 
Mitchell,  Mulholland,  and  Hughes,  reported  as  follows: 
"  Your  special  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  the  autonomy  of  the  trade  unions,  beg  leave  to  say 

53  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  19. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I /I 

that  it  is  our  judgment  the  future  success,  permanency 
and  safety  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  as  well  as 
the  trade  unions  themselves,  depend  upon  the  recognition 
and  application  of  the  principle  of  autonomy,  consistent  with 
the  varying  phases  and  transactions  in  industry."^*  The 
committee  then  recommended  that  in  those  industries  which 
are  isolated  from  thickly  populated  centers  and  in  which 
most  of  the  separate  trades  represent  only  a  small  propor- 
tion of  the  total  number  engaged  in  the  industry,  jurisdic- 
tion be  exercised  over  all  the  trades  by  the  paramount 
organization. 

In  attempting  to  determine  so  intangible  a  thing  as  the 
tendency  of  an  institution  one  can  rarely  base  an  opinion 
upon  categorical  statement  or  direct  evidence,  but  must  lay 
hold  of  straws.  Such  a  clue  is  found  in  an  incident  of  the 
convention  of  1909  of  the  Marble  Workers  which  suggests 
a  tendency  toward  limited  industrialism  or  a  closer  affiliation 
of  closely  related  trades.  President  Gompers,  addressing 
the  delegates,  said :  "  I  do  hope  that  the  time  is  not  far 
distant  when  the  men  engaged  in  the  stone  trades  will  be- 
come one  powerful  organization.  If  not  a  complete  amal- 
gamation, there  should  be  an  identity  of  interest  and  a 
thorough  understanding,  in  which  one  organization  would 
assist  the  other."  President  Evans  of  the  Stone  Cutters 
also  spoke  in  the  same  vein,  and  these  sentiments  were  ap- 
proved by  President  Price  of  the  Marble  Workers  and  by 
the  convention.''^  In  1907  the  president  of  the  Marble 
Workers  reported  having  attended  in  Buffalo  a  conference 
between  the  Stone  Cutters,  Granite  Cutters,  Marble  Work- 
ers, and  Bricklayers  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  up  agree- 
ments between  the  various  trades.^® 

When  the  jurisdictional  controversy  between  the  Brewery 
Workmen  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Engineers,  Firemen, 
Machinists,   Teamsters,   and   so   forth,   on  the  other   was 

5*  Proceedings,  1904,  p.  36,  and  appendix. 

55  The  Marble  Worker,  June,  1909,  p.  124. 

56  Ibid.,  February,  1907,  p.  6. 


1/2     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

before  the  convention  of  the  Federation,^^  it  was  decided 
that  the  interests  of  these  various  workmen  would  be  best 
promoted  by  having  one  general  union.  When  the  same 
question  came  up  with  regard  to  the  membership  in  the 
Mine  Workers  of  the  blacksmiths  and  firemen  about  the 
mines,  a  committee  of  the  Federation  said :  "  In  rendering  a 
decision  on  this  resolution,  we  must  reaffirm  our  adherence 
to  the  broader  conception  of  trade  autonomy,  already  ex- 
pressed, as  applied  to  such  cases,  and  in  the  light  of  .  .  . 
the  necessity  for  solidarity  among  the  laborers  employed 
in  and  about  the  mines,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  juris- 
diction over  the  blacksmiths  and  firemen  employed  about 
the  mines  should  be  vested  in  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America."  The  Plumbers'  Association,  in  its  claim  to  cover 
the  whole  pipe-fitting  industry,  is  a  limited  industrial  union. 
The  United  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters  is  rapidly  becoming 
an  industrial  union. 

It  was  the  policy  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  sink  the  in- 
dividuality of  the  various  trades  in  local  associations  in- 
cluding all  workmen.  Under  the  system  of  organization 
originally  fostered  and  represented  by  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  the  pendulum  swung  to  the  other  extreme. 
Under  this  plan  trade  groups  are  divided  and  subdivided 
until,  as  in  some  of  the  building-trades  unions,  each  division 
of  labor  is  organized  as  a  separate  union.  Just  as  the  older 
system  was  too  comprehensive  and  too  unv^ieldy  to  meet 
satisfactorily  the  needs  of  the  individual  workman,  so  the 
later  form  of  organization  has  been  both  too  complex  and 
too  minute  to  bring  about  such  unity  of  action  and  harmony 
of  feeling  as  is  necessary  to  produce  the  best  results,  not 
only  for  the  unionists  themselves,  but  for  society  as  a  whole. 

Signs  are  not  wanting  to  prove  that  the  pendulum  has 
already  started  on  its  return  swing.  What  other  interpreta- 
tion can  be  placed  on  the  admission  to  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor  of  such  industrial  unions  as  the  United  Mine 
Workers  and  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  in  which 

57  Proceedings,  1900,  pp.  185,  192. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  1/3 

trade  lines  are  obliterated,  and  of  the  Brewery  Workmen, 
an  industrial  association  with  a  certain  regard  for  craft  lines, 
and  on  the  attempts  to  consolidate  the  carpenters'  and  wood 
workers'  organizations,  and  to  bring  about  an  amalgama- 
tion of  all  the  pipe-fitting  trades?  The  Federation  appar- 
ently is  rapidly  shifting  its  position.  It  has  admitted  in- 
dustrial unions,  though  its  president  and  other  officials  have 
frequently  declared  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  industrial  unionism,  and  it  has  permitted  the  growth 
of  the  Building  Trades  and  Metal  Trades  Departments. 

This  unmistakable  trend  toward  industrialism^^  or,  at 
least,  toward  a  closer  federation  of  trades  seems  to  fore- 
cast a  great  reduction  in  .the  number  of  demarcation  dis- 
putes, and  ultimately  their  possible  elimination.  As  a  result 
of  the  formation  of  industrial  unions,  lines  of  division  be- 
tween specialized  trades  will  be  broken  down.  When  this 
has  come  about,  there  will  be  few  disputes  over  the  right  to 
a  trade,  and  these  will  be  internal. 

Trade  unionists  themselves  expect  much,  in  the  way  of 
preventing  jurisdictional  controversies,  from  a  gradual 
change  in  the  attitude  of  the  workmen  toward  each  other. 
Secretary  Brandt  of  the  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers' 
Union,  while  not  an  advocate  of  industrial  unionism,  be- 
lieves that  the  growth  of  a  more  friendly  feeling  among 
the  unions  will  gradually  eliminate  disputes.^*  Treasurer 
Lennon  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  said  at  the 
convention  of  1903  of  the  Federation :  "  Time,  which  settles 
all  questions,  will  settle  this  one  of  jurisdiction,  and  the 
workers  of  our  continent  will  in  time  discover  where  their 
interests  will  be  best  served,  and  they  will  decide  finally  to 
what  jurisdiction  they  belong.  .  .  .  Time,  coupled  with  for- 
bearance and  patience,  it  appears  to  me,  are  the  only  reason- 
able solutions  of  this  great  question."^^  A  few  years  later 
President  Kirby  of  the  Building  Trades  said :  ''  So  it  is  up 

58  Blum,  p.  447. 

59  Interview,  Secretary  Brandt,  July,  1912. 

60  Proceedings,  1903,  p.  59. 


174     JURISDICTION   IN   AMERICAN   BUILDING-TRADES   UNIONS 

to  US  to  endeavor  to  harmonize  these  conflicting  interests 
as  much  as  possible.  ...  It  may  not  be  accomplished  this 
time,  but  sooner  than  some  of  us  may  believe  possible,  the 
trade  dispute  will  be  minimized  to  such  an  extent  that  it 
will  not  longer  be  a  menace  and  curse  to  both  the  employer 
and  employee."^^ 

To  sum  up :  Although,  for  the  reasons  given,  none  of  the 
remedies  for  jurisdictional  disputes — conference  and  agree- 
ment, arbitration,  amalgamation,  exchange  of  working  cards, 
and  membership  in  both  of  the  unions  claiming  the  work — 
can  be  regarded  as  of  general  applicability,  each  is  still  used 
and  is  likely  to  continue  in  use,  and  will  undoubtedly  in 
some  cases  produce  the  desired  result.  As  for  the  sug- 
gestions for  the  prevention  of  jurisdictional  conflicts,  though 
here  again  no  one  plan  can  be  relied  upon  to  prevent  all 
controversies,  each  would  effect  something.  Of  such  pre- 
ventive measures  the  most  valuable  would  be  the  abolition 
of  the  sympathetic  strike  on  questions  of  jurisdiction. 
This,  it  is  possible,  the  unions  may  put  into  execution  when 
they  realize  more  fully  the  literally  incalculable  cost  of 
jurisdictional  disputes,  a  great  part  of  which  falls  upon 
organized  labor.  If  all  the  building-trades  unions  would 
agree  that  under  no  circumstances  would  they  participate  in 
a  sympathetic  strike  on  account  of  a  jurisdictional  contest 
between  two  or  more  of  their  associations,  the  contractors 
could  employ  whichever  group  of  the  men  they  regarded  as 
best  fitted  for  the  work,  and  the  employment  of  the  other 
trades  would  not  be  interrupted.  The  union  which  lost  the 
work  could  do  nothing  but  submit,  for  it  would  have  no 
means  of  resisting.  Labor  leaders  in  various  cities  claim 
that  there  is  a  growing  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  abolition 
of  sympathetic  strikes  on  questions  of  jurisdiction.  To 
make  this  eiTeotive  it  may  be  necessary  to  require  the  deposit 
of  bonds  by  both  the  employers  and  the  unions,  so  that,  an 
agreement  as  to  the  proposed  distribution  of  the  work  having 
been  made  before  the  building  operation  is  begun,  the  work- 

®i  Building  Trades  Conference,  1908,  p.  10. 


REMEDIES   FOR   JURISDICTIONAL  DISPUTES  I75 

men  should  by  these  bonds  guarantee  the  employers  against 
losses  due  to  sympathetic  strikes  over  questions  of  juris- 
diction, while  the  employers  should  bind  themselves  to  pro- 
tect the  workmen  from  loss  of  employment  on  account  of 
changes  in  the  award  of  work  in  violation  of  the  agreement. 
A  plan  somewhat  of  this  nature  was  adopted  in  Chicago 
during  July,  19 13,  to  bring  to  an  end  a  lockout  which  had 
involved  for  a  month  twenty-eight  thousand  men  and  thirty 
million  dollars  worth  of  building  construction.  If  the 
unions  themselves  fail  to  adopt  some  sort  of  a  plan,  there 
might  be  established  by  legal  enactment  machinery  some- 
what similar  to  that  provided  by  the  Erdman  Act  which 
would  compel  arbitration  of  all  sympathetic  strikes  arising 
over  questions  of  jurisdiction. 

Finally,  the  recognized  heads  of  the  labor  movement 
among  the  building  trades — the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  and  the  Building  Trades  Department — can  do  a  great 
deal  to  diminish  conflicts  over  jurisdiction  if  they  con- 
sistently refuse  to  charter  or  in  any  way  recognize  new 
unions  whose  field  of  work  approaches  even  moderately 
close  to  organizations  already  in  existence.  The  position 
must  be  taken  that  there  are  certain  basic  trades  and  that 
each  new  division  of  labor  is  but  a  constituent  part  of  one  of 
these  trades  and  is  not  entitled  to  recognition  as  a  separate 
union,  for  otherwise,  as  the  division  of  labor  goes  on,  dis- 
putes will  be  increased  instead  of  diminished. 


INDEX 


Allied  Trades  Council  of  Phila- 
delphia, 99. 

Amalgamation  of  Steam  Fitters 
and  Plumbers,  17  (and  note), 
18. 

American  Economic  Association 
Quarterly,  10  (note). 

Asbestos  Workers.  See  Heat, 
Frost,  General  Insulators  and 
Asbestos  Workers. 

Bakery  and  Confectionery  Work- 
ers, International  Union  of,  122 
(note). 

Baltimore  Federation  of  Labor, 
163   (note). 

Barnett,  G.  E.,  10  (and  note),  94 
(note),  169  (note). 

Belvedere  Hotel,  Baltimore,  103, 
108. 

Blacksmiths,  International  Broth- 
erhood of,  122  (note). 

Blast  Furnace  Workers  and 
Smelters,  National  Association 
of,  122  (note). 

Blum,  Solomon,  156  (note),  173 
(note). 

Board  of  Delegates,  New  York, 
132,  133- 

Boiler  Makers  and  Iron  Ship- 
builders, Brotherhood  of,  102. 

Boyd,  Secretary  of  Building  In- 
dustries Association  of  St. 
Louis,  141   (and  note). 

Brandt,  Secretary  of  Wood, 
Wire  and  Metal  Lathers'  Un- 
ion, 173. 

Bretano,  Judge,  154. 

Brewery  Workmen,  United,  41, 
122  (note),  171,  173. 

Bricklayers',  Masons'  and  Plas- 
terers* International  Union,  15, 
22,  Z7,  38  (and  note),  46,  48, 
62,  68,  69,  88,  89  (and  note), 
96,  97,  98,  99,  100, 158,  159,  166, 
171 ;  jurisdiction  of  local  un- 


ions of,  27,  32,  33,  35,  48;  dual 
unions  of,  64,  67,  70,  71,  72 
(and  note),  73  (and  note),  81, 
82,  84,  85,  93;  trade  jurisdic- 
tion of,  52,  S3,  55,  S(i  (and 
note),  104;  demarcation  dis- 
putes of,  106,  108,  III,  112,  113, 
114  115,  119,  127,  130,  132,  139, 
142. 

Bricklayers,  Order  of  United 
American,  67. 

Bridge  and  Structural  Iron 
Workers,  International,  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  52,  54,  60  (and 
note)  ;  dual  unions  of,  93 ;  de- 
marcation disputes  of,  107,  113, 
114,  115,  130,  132,  144. 

Building  Employers'  Association 
of  Chicago,  109,  143  (note). 

Building  Laborers*  Protective 
Union,  International,  74,  85. 

Building  Laborers'  Union  of 
New  England,  85. 

Building  Trades  Council,  Na- 
tional, 41  (note),  46  (note), 
74  (and  note),  102,  114,  162. 

Building  Trades  Department  of 
American  Federation  of  Labor, 
17,  41  (note),  44  (note),  50 
(and  note),  51  (note),  65,  66, 
74  (and  note),  75,  76,  83,  87 
(note),  90,  113,  123,  124,  126, 
129,  130,  133,  145,  156,  158,  161, 
163,  168,  174. 

Building  Trades  Employers'  As- 
sociation, 76. 

Building-trades  unions,  reasons 
for  investigation  of,  12. 

Cabinet  Makers  of  Brooklyn,  79 
(note). 

Canada,  jurisdiction  over,  13,  19. 

Car  Workers,  International  As- 
sociation of,  trade  jurisdiction 
of,  60   (note). 

Carpenters,    Amalgamated     So- 


12 


177 


178 


INDEX 


ciety  of,  (fj,  79,  92,  102,  122 
(note),  132,  133,  158. 

Carpenters  and  Joiners,  United 
Brotherhood  of,  31,  35;  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  45  (and  note), 
48,  53,  54,  55,  57,  58,  59,  60 
(and  note),  dz  (note),  103, 
105,  166,  172;  dual  unions  of, 
65,  67,  69  (and  note),  74,  78 
(note),  81,  92;  demarcation 
disputes  of,  105,  no,  113  (and 
note),  114,  116,  122  (note), 
124,  125,  126,  129,  130,  132,  133, 
134,  143  (note),  150,  153,  154, 
155,  156,  157,  158. 

Carpenters  of  Detroit,  Associ- 
ated, 79  (note). 

Carpenters'  Union  of  Newark, 
Independent,  79  (note). 

Carpenters,  United  Order  of,  79 
(note). 

Carriage  and  Wagon  Workers* 
International  Union,  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  60  (note). 

Cement  Workers,  Brotherhood 
of,  trade  jurisdiction  of,  52,  53, 
56  (note),  60  (and  note),  74; 
demarcation   disputes   of,    115, 

153. 
Central  America,  jurisdiction  in, 

13. 
Central  Labor  Union  of  Boston, 

131. 

Closed  shop,  9  (note),  41,  42. 

Closed  union,  41,  42. 

Commons,  J.  R.,  93  (note),  132 
(note),  139  (note),  IS5- 

Composition  Roofers'  Union,  In- 
ternational, territorial  juris- 
diction of,  18,  33,  36;  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  49,  52;  demar- 
cation disputes  of,  114,  160. 

Conditional  charter,  granted  to 
Steam  Fitters,  17. 

Copley  Plaza  Hotel,  Boston,  130, 
131. 

Coremakers*  Union,  122  (note). 

Critchlow,  Secretary  of  Inter- 
national Laborers*   Union,   '^Z- 

Cutters  and  Setters*  Union,  Na- 
tional, 75. 

Dahlstrom    Sheet    Metal    Com- 
pany, 104. 
Demarcation  disputes,  11,  95  ff. 


Denver  Building  Trades  Coun- 
cil, 133. 

Department  of  labor,  Canada,  20 
(note). 

Dobson,  Secretary  of  Brick- 
layers, 16,  28,  71  (note),  93, 
94  (note),  104,  119. 

Downey,  P.  J.,  iS3- 

Dual-union  and  demarcation  dis- 
putes distinguished,  (i2. 

Dual  unions,  classified,  79;  defi- 
nition of,  65;  disputes,  10,  62 
ff. ;  in  Great  Britain,  66  (note)  ; 
local  unions,  66. 

Duffy,  Secretary  of  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters, 
137  (note). 

Duncan,  James,  14,  15,  75,  9^,  np, 
170. 

Eidlitz,  Otto  M.,  71  (note). 

Electrical  Workers,  International 
Brotherhood  of,  50  (note),  54, 
60  (note),  83,  102;  demarca- 
tion disputes  of,  107,  126,  132. 

Elevator  Constructors,  Interna- 
tional Association  of,  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  54,  60  (note)  ; 
demarcation  disputes  of,  107, 
127,  134,  135. 

Emerson  Building,  Baltimore, 
163. 

Empire  Association,  75. 

Evans,  President  of  Stone  Cut- 
ters* Union,  171. 

Federation  of  Labor,  American, 
16,  17,  19,  50  (note),  65,  66,  68, 
70,  7Z,  74,  75,  76,  77,  83,  84 
(note),  88,   93,    105,   113,   121, 

123,  124,  129,  130,  149,  150,  151, 
152,  155,  158,  162,  172,  174. 

Field    and    Company,    Marshall, 

140,  144. 
Fuller  Company,  George  A.,  130, 

131. 

Garment  Workers,  United,  122 
(note). 

Garrett,  Delegate  of  Steam  Fit- 
ters, 90. 

Gaynor,  Judge,  104,  154,  iS6. 

Gompers,   Samuel,   19,   121,   122, 

124,  125  (note),  131,  149,  157, 
170,  171. 


INDEX 


179 


Granite  Cutters'  International 
Association,  14,  21,  34,  38,  39; 
trade  jurisdiction  of,  48,  52,  55, 
91,  103;  jurisdiction  of  local 
unions  of,  30;  demarcation 
disputes  of,  106,  108,  116,  117, 
118,  119,  150,  159,  161,  166,  171. 

Hanlon,  Secretary  of  Chicago 
Building  Trades  Council,  154 
(note). 

Harris  Trust  Building,  Chicago, 
141. 

Heat  and  Power  Contractors* 
Association  of  St.  Louis,  142. 

Heat,  Frost,  General  Insulators 
and  Asbestos  Workers,  Na- 
tional Association  of,  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  60  (note),  131. 

Hod  Carriers  and  Building  La- 
borers' International  Union, 
territorial  jurisdiction  of,  18, 
37;  members-at-large,  22;  dual 
unions  of,  85;  trade  jurisdic- 
tion of,  51,  53,  55,  56  (and 
note),  60  (note),  73,  74,  77, 
153,  158;  jurisdiction  of  local 
unions  of,  27,  31,  33 ;  demarca- 
tion disputes  of,  126. 

Honolulu,  Bricklayers'  jurisdic- 
tion extended  to,  16. 

House  Framers  of  Brooklyn,  79 
(note). 

Housesmiths'  Union  of  New- 
York,  Independent,  93. 

Huber,  President  of  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  47, 
58,  59. 

Hughes  Heating  Company,  141, 
142. 

Independent  unions,  67. 

Industrial  union,  41. 

Industrial  Workers  of  the  World, 
69,  170. 

Insurance  Exchange  Building, 
Chicago,  113   (note). 

International  and  Great  North- 
ern Railroad  Company,  163. 

Interunion  aspect  of  jurisdiction, 
42. 

Iron  Molders,  See  Holders' 
Union,  International. 


Jewish  Temple,  Chicago,  113 
(note). 

Joint  control  of  local  territory, 
36. 

Jones,  George,  72. 

Jurisdiction,  defined,  11,  42;  in- 
ternational in  scope,  13;  over 
trade,  9,  10,  11,  40;  personal,  9, 
10;  territorial,  10,  11,  13,  40; 
of  local  unions,  fixed  by  defi- 
nite rules,  25-27;  determined 
by  expediency,  27-30;  not  more 
than  one  local  union  permitted 
in  a  town,  30-31 ;  more  than 
one  local  union  in  a  town,  31- 
34. 

Kirby,  President  of  Building 
Trades  Department,  134,  135, 
164,  173. 

Knights  of  Labor,  68,  69  (note), 
172. 

Kreyling,  Secretary  of  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  St.  Louis,  154 
(and  note). 

Laborers'  International  Protec- 
tive Union,  18  (note). 

Laborers'  Union,  International, 
73^ 

Laclede  Gas  Company  Building, 
St.  Louis,  141. 

Ladies'  Garment  Workers'  Un- 
ion, International,  122  (note). 

Lathing  Union,  New  York  Iron 
Furring  and  Metallic,  76. 

Laundry  Workers,  United,  122 
(note). 

Lennon,  Treasurer  of  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  136,  173. 

Leonard,  Delegate  of  Plumbers' 
Association,  90. 

Lillien,  Herman,  158. 

Local  unions,  territorial  juris- 
diction of,  24-34. 

Longshoremen,  Marine  and 
Transport  Workers'  Associa- 
tion, 122  (note),  157. 

Low,  Honorable  Seth,  154. 

McGuire,  Secretary  of  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters,  50. 
Machinery  Movers'  Union,  141. 


i8q 


INDEX 


Machinists,  International  Broth- 
erhood of,  trade  jurisdiction 
of,  54,  60  (note) ;  dual  unions 
of,  67;  demarcation  disputes 
of,  107,  122  (note),  127,  144, 
171. 

McHugh,  Secretary  of  Stone 
Cutters,  29  (note),  82,  86,  87 
(note),   160   (note). 

McNulty  faction  of  Electrical 
Workers,  66,  83,  131,  134. 

McSorley,  Vice-President  of 
Building  Trades  Department, 
134. 

Marble  Dealers,  National  Asso- 
ciation of,  163. 

Marble  Workers'  Helpers,  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  55. 

Marble  Workers,  International 
Association  of,  48,  49,  163; 
dual  unions  of,  75,  76;  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  54,  55,  60,  154. 

Marble  Workers,  Progressive 
Association  of,  75. 

Marshall,  painting  contractor,  13. 

Mason  Builders'  Association  of 
New  York,  71  (note). 

Members-at-large,  22. 

Metal  Mechanics,  Allied,  122 
(note). 

Metal  Mechanics,  International, 
122  (note). 

Metal  Roofers'  Union,  154. 

Metal  Trades  Department,  173. 

Mexico,  jurisdiction  in,  13. 

Mill  Woodworkers,  102. 

Millwrights,  demarcation  dis- 
putes of,  107,  144. 

Milwaukee  Building  Trades 
Council,  85. 

Mine  Workers,  United,  41,  122 
(note),  172. 

Miners,  Western  Federation  of, 
172. 

Mississippi  Valley  District  Coun- 
cil of  Wood,  Wire  and  Metal 
Lathers,  26. 

Molders'  Union,  International, 
122  (note). 

Moore,  Business  Agent  of  Plum- 
bers, 126  (note). 

National  union,  defined,   11. 


Nationality,    as    basis    for   local 

union  jurisdiction,  31,  32,  ^^, 

78. 
Neidig,  Robert,  93. 
New     York     Building     Trades 

Council,  84  (note). 
New  York  Society  of  Printers, 

jurisdiction  of,  10. 
North  America,  jurisdiction  over, 

13,  19. 
Northwestern     Depot,    Chicago, 
154. 

Ornamental  Iron  Setters,  143 
(note). 

Ornamental  Iron  Workers,  de- 
marcation disputes  of,  107. 

Otis  Elevator  Company,  127,  135. 

Painters  and  Decorators,  Broth- 
erhood of,  so  (note),  60 
(note)  ;  trade  jurisdiction  of, 
53,  103;  demarcation  disputes 
of,  109,  no,  114,  122  (note), 
131,  132. 

Parks,  Sam,  93. 

Pavers,  Rammers,  Flaggers, 
Bridge  and  Stone  Curb  Set- 
ters, International  Union  of, 
119. 

Plasterers,  Brotherhood  of  Oper- 
ative, trade  jurisdiction  of,  54, 
(>2,  70,  71,  72  (note),  79,  158, 
159;  demarcation  disputes  of, 
105,  no,  III,  112,  127,  130,  132, 
139,  154. 

Plasterers'  Laborers'  Union,  130. 

Plumbers,  Gas  and  Steam  Fit- 
ters, United  Association  of, 
16,  zzy  49,  ^^>  6s,  69,  70,  79,  85, 
89,  90,  92,  99,  102,  159,  172; 
trade  jurisdiction  of,  54,  60; 
demarcation  disputes  of,  107, 
119,  122  (note),  124,  126,  127, 
130,  132,  135,  136,  140,  141,  149, 
151,  153,  157,  166. 

Porto  Rico,  bricklayers  of,  16. 

Preceptories.  See  Sheet  Metal 
Workers. 

Pressers'  and  Finishers'  Union, 
99. 

Price,  President  of  Marble 
Workers,  171. 


INDEX 


i8i 


Railroad  Telegraphers,  Order  of, 
122  (note). 

Railway  Expressmen,  Brother- 
hood of,  122  (note). 

Reid.     See  McNulty. 

"  Right  to  a  trade."  See  Trade 
jurisdiction. 

Rist,  Arbitrator  between  Plum- 
bers and  Steam  Fitters,  153. 

Roebling  Construction  Company, 
142. 

Roofers'  Protective  Union,  76. 

Ryan,  President  of  Structural 
Iron  Workers,  131. 

Seamen's    International    Union, 

122  (note),  157. 
Sears,    Roebuck   and    Company, 

153. 

Sheet  Metal  Workers'  Interna- 
tional Alliance,  original  terri- 
tory, 18;  extended,  19. 

Sheet  Metal  Workers,  Interna- 
tional Association  of,  68,  102, 
103,  104,  149,  156,  157,  160,  163, 
166 ;  members-at-large,  23 ; 
jurisdiction  of  local  unions  of, 
29,  31,  36,  48;  trade  jurisdic- 
tion of,  53,  54,  60  (note),  61, 
loi,  105;  demarcation  disputes 
of,  107,  108,  113  (and  note), 
114,  IIS,  116,  119,  122  (note), 
124,  129,  154. 

Sheet  Metal  Workers'  National 
Alliance,  68. 

Shop  steward,  in  Granite  Cut- 
ters' Union,  21. 

Short,  President  of  Building 
Trades  Department,  126,  129, 
131,  132,  161. 

Silk  Workers,  International,  122 
(note). 

Slate  and  Tile  Roofers'  Interna- 
tional Union,  territorial  juris- 
diction of,  18,  25,  36;  trade 
jurisdiction  of,  49,  53,  loi ; 
dual  unions  of,  76;  members- 
at-large,  23;  demarcation  dis- 
putes of,  114,  116,  119,  160. 

Smith,  Vice-President  of  Paint- 
ers' Union,  134. 

Smithsonian  Institution,  118. 

Spencer,  Secretary  of  Building 
Trades  Department,  44  (note), 
130,  139,  152. 


Stair  Builders,  102. 

Steam  and  Hot  Water  Fitters, 
International  Association  of, 
i6,  47,  62,  65,  69,  70,  79,  89,  90, 
92,  99,  102,  166;  trade  juris- 
diction of,  54;  demarcation 
disputes  of,  107,  122  (note), 
124,  126,  127,  130,  131,  132,  135, 
140,  141,  142,  149,  151,  153,  I54> 
157,  159. 

Stockton,  F.  T.,  42  (note). 

Stone  Cutters'  Association  of 
North  America,  Journeymen, 
19,  29,  34,  Z7>  47,  48,  91,  92,  99, 
100,  150,  159,  160,  161,  166;  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction,  growth  of, 
19;  direct  control  over  mem- 
bers, 23;  jurisdiction  of  local 
unions  of,  26,  36;  trade  juris- 
diction of,  52,  54,  57,  103;  dual 
unions  of,  64,  78,  79,  86,  87 
(note),  91;  demarcation  dis- 
putes of,  106,  107,  109,  III,  115, 
118,  119,  149. 

Stone  Cutters,  Eastern  Associa- 
tion of,  79,  80. 

Stone  Masons'  International  Un- 
ion, J2,  82,  84. 

Stonecutters'  Association,  Na- 
tional, 87  (note). 

Strasser,  Adolph,  158. 

Street  and  Electric  Railway  Em- 
ployes, Amalgamated,  122 
(note). 

Structural  Building  Trades  Alli- 
ance, 64,  152. 

Sympathetic  strikes,  12,  164,  174. 

Team  Drivers'  Union,  122  (note). 

Teamsters,  International  Broth- 
erhood of,  122  (note),  171. 

Textile  Workers  of  America, 
United,  122  (note). 

Tile  Layers,  International  Asso- 
ciation of,  trade  jurisdiction 
of,  60  (and  note)  ;  demarca- 
tion disputes  of,  113,  114. 

Trade  jurisdiction,  determined 
upon  what  grounds,  55,  97. 

Tuck  Pointers'  Union,  47. 

United  Metal  Workers*  Inter- 
national Union,  68. 

University  of  Pennsylvania, 
buildings  of,  103,  106. 


I82 


INDEX 


Upholsterers*  International  Un- 
ion, 122   (note). 

Wanamaker  Building,  Phila- 
delphia, 142. 

Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice,  loi 
(note),    121    (and    note),    129 
(note),    145,    164    (note),   165,' 
169. 

Wolfe,  F.  E.,  42  (note). 

Wood  Lathers'  Union  of  New 
York,  Independent,  'j^. 

Wood,  Wire  and  Metal  Lathers' 
International  Union,  territorial 
jurisdiction  of,   18,  33;  juris- 


diction of  local  unions  of,  25, 
30;  trade  jurisdiction  of,  53, 
60  (note),  97,  loij  dual  unions 
of,  64,  -jt,  84,  86  (and  note)  ; 
demarcation  disputes  of,  105, 
114,  115,  116,  122  (note),  123 
(note). 
Wood  Workers,  Amalgamated, 
47,  ^Z  (note),  92,  122  (note), 
125,  150,  153,  155,  157,  158. 

Young,  General  Secretary  of 
Elevator  Constructors,  127 
(note). 


VITA 

Nathaniel  Ruggles  Whitney  was  born  at  Lykens,  Penn- 
sylvania, September  6,  1882.  He  received  his  elementary 
education  in  the  public  schools  and  graduated  from  the 
Lykens  High  School  in  1900.  For  two  years  he  was  em- 
ployed in  the  Miners'  Deposit  Bank  of  Lykens,  and  in  1902 
entered  Pennsylvania  College  at  Gettysburg.  Graduating 
in  1906  with  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts,  he  spent  four 
years  with  the  Continental  Trust  Company  of  Philadelphia, 
and  entered  Johns  Hopkins  University  in  October,  1910, 
taking  graduate  courses  in  Political  Economy,  Political 
Science,  and  Philosophy.  He  held  a  University  Scholarship 
during  1910-1911  and  1911-1912,  and  a  Fellowship  in  Polit- 
ical Economy  during  1912-1913. 


183 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC^DXrr 


T3i 


t^bC'P  LD 


jUii4    1960- 


--# 


^ 


LD  21A-50m-4,'59 
(Al724sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


